Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION

Human Embryos

Mr. Harry Greenway: I have the honour to present three petitions containing many signatures—up to 2,000—from my constituents. They come from Our Lady of the Visitation church, Greenford, in the name of Mrs. J. Balaam of 358 Greenford road, Greenford; Father Phil Barry and his clergy at St. Bernard's church, Northolt; Father Antony Brunning of 17 Mandeville road, Northolt, his clergy, supporters and many others; and the Abbey church of St. Benedict, Ealing in the name of Isabelle Glover of 70 Claremont road, W13, supported by Dom Francis Rossiter, Abbot of Ealing and Benedictine Abbot of All England, Father Michael Hopley and the communities of St. Benedict, Ealing.
The petitioners call for the protection of the human embryo, which they believe to be seriously threatened by the proposals shortly to be placed before the House. They believe, and I share their belief, that there is human life from the moment of conception, that that life is made in the image of God and that it should not be violated under any circumstances by experimentation. I strongly support that view and hope that the House will reject any move to allow experimentation on the human embryo in the Bill shortly to be discussed in the House.
The humble petition of the parishioners of our Lady of the Visitation church, St. Bernards church, Northolt and the Abbey Church of St. Benedict, Ealing showeth that we affirm that the newly-fertilised embryo is a real, living human being:
Therefore, we welcome the statement in the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology (the Warnock Report) That "the status of the embryo is a matter of fundamental principle which should be enshrined in legislation", and its recommendation that the embryo of the human species should be afforded protection in law; and therefore we oppose all such practices as are recommended in the Report which discriminate against the embryo or violate his/her human dignity and right to life.
Wherefore, your petitioners pray that the House of Commons will take immediate steps to enact legislation which (a) forbids any procedure that involves purchase or sale of human embryos, the discarding or freezing of human embryos, their use as sources of transplant tissue or as subjects for research or experiment (unless this is done solely for the benefit of the embryo concerned); and (b) forbids all forms of trans-species fertilisation.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc. I beg to present the petition.

To lie upon the Table.

Irish Republic (Extradition)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad]

Mr. William Ross: Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Ross: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. We usually debate Northern Ireland business so late that you are not present. However, I am sure that you, as the chief commoner of England, are so interested in this matter that you will stay. I would like to extend that to the whole United Kingdom. The matter that I wish to discuss is of great importance to the common people of this Kingdom, and their rights and privileges under the Crown, especially with regard to their desire to remain under the rule of the Crown.
I should be far happier if I were speaking to a crowded House, but a debate such as this gives one a chance to place on record the views of the Unionist people of Northern Ireland.
I have no doubt that the few hon. Members present, and the many more people outside, will remember the euphoria when the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed. In our debates, arguments and questions, time and time again the Government Front Bench gave two reasons why the United Kingdom had entered into that agreement. Briefly, they were that for the first time the position of Northern Ireland was recognised by the Irish Republic and that extradition of members of terrorist organisations—to be more specific, of the IRA—from the Irish Republic was assured.
At the time, the ordinary folk of the Unionist community said, through their representatives, that the Government's view on the first reason was incorrect. I am amazed that, even after the Dublin Supreme Court judgment in the case of McGimpsey, the Government will still not admit that the Unionist population was correct in believing that the words in the constitution of the Republic have their normal, everyday meaning. That matter will be covered in the next debate. I do not want to pre-empt what the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) will say on that matter, but I should put it on record that the Unionist population got it right and the Government got it wrong.
I last spoke on this subject in an Adjournment debate at Christmas in 1987 when I drew attention to the requirements of the Irish Extradition (Amendment) Act 1987 in the Irish Republic. Those requirements were important then and they are even more important today, as the judgments in the cases of Finucane and Clarke relate to offences before that Act came into force.
In that debate I pointed out that, under Irish law, a full book of evidence must be available to the Republic and that some of the evidence that might be needed would be available only after the RUC had questioned the people concerned. In Irish law that requirement applies only to United Kingdom requests for extradition.
In the same debate I also said that the treaty made extradition impossible unless we paid a constitutional price and the price of interference with the judiciary in Britain. We have not paid that price and we may now be seeing the outcome of the blackmail inherent in what was being said in the Irish Republic at the time.


The plain truth is that, in the Irish Republic, judges take an oath to uphold the constitution and the institutions of the state. They have now clearly spelt out what they are meant to uphold. I do not take issue with them on that, but I do take issue with my Government for being so foolish as to believe that they could weave their way round the straightforward language of the Irish constitution.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does my hon. Friend agree that many right hon. and hon. Members would like to know whether Her Majesty's Government have yet considered the full implications of recent decisions in the Irish Supreme Court, and whether a policy has been decided with regard to future requests from the Government of the Irish Republic for the return of Irish citizens who, according to Irish law, are now deemed to have been unconstitutionally extradited to the United Kingdom?

Mr. Ross: Many of those people are serving or have served prison sentences in the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend makes an interesting point and I hope that the Minister will provide him with an answer, as I hope that he will provide me.
The debate to which I referred in December 1987 followed two questions to the Prime Minister on 1 December. In reply to one of them the right hon. Lady said that she regretted that,
notwithstanding our representations, the Irish Government are taking additional measures that could make extradition more difficult … It is essential that we maintain effective extradition arrangements so that there is no hiding place for terrorists. I agree with my hon. Friend that what the Republic is doing by taking this step is making us the least favoured nation in this matter.
Therefore, the Government cannot now say that they were unaware of the implications of the 1987 Act. Perhaps they hoped that those who committed offences before that legislation came into operation might still be extradited. However, that hope has been holed and fairly thoroughly sunk.
On the same day, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker), the Prime Minister said:
There is a risk that extradition could become more difficult because of the new measures taken by the Irish Republic and that they would be a step backwards from the existing arrangements".—[Official Report, 1 December 1987; Vol. 123, c. 762.]
Twice on the same day, the Prime Minister said with great clarity that the Government were fully aware of the Irish bog of deception and mistrust into which they were wandering and in which they now find themselves up to the neck. Surely we shall not be told today that this has all come as a great surprise. They knew in 1987 that that would happen.
In answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), on 14 December 1988 the Attorney-General clarified the position of the 1987 legislation. He said:
In cases unaffected by the Irish Extradition (Amendment) Act 1987, the only documents required of United Kingdom police forces by Irish law are warrants of arrest and affidavits and certificates supporting them. No further explanation of such cases ordinarily is required.
That was pre-1987. He went on:
In cases to which the 1987 Act does apply, sufficient information has to be given to the Irish Attorney-General to

satisfy him that the relevant United Kingdom prosecuting authority has a clear intention to prosecute and that this intention is founded upon the existence of sufficient evidence."—[Official Report, 14 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 569.]
That brings me back to my earlier point that the Irish authorities need the full book of evidence. That, as I pointed out in the previous Adjournment debate, is probably impossible to provide unless the RUC has an opportunity to question in depth the individual concerned.
All that shows clearly the increased difficulties that would arise. But just how great they are is perhaps only now becoming clear to the ordinary citizen in this land as the current reasons for not sending back criminals from the Irish Republic to face justice in the United Kingdom become apparent. Finucane and Clarke are the most recent cases, but they are not, by a long chalk, the first, and they will not be the last. The Father Ryan and the Glenholmes cases stand out in people's memory in Britain, but there are many others of lesser note and we shall see many more in the future.
The reasons for such cases not being sent back differ in detail. Sometimes for the tiniest of technical reasons, extradition requests were refused. As a result, known members of the IRA are still walking round as free men in the Republic. Because of the words used in the judgment to which I referred, they will never be returned to justice in the United Kingdom.
Two reasons were given in the Finucane and Clarke cases. First, it was said that there would be ill treatment by prison officers if they were returned. In that case, the evidence that was used of ill-treatment was the Pettigrew case. But is there any evidence of ill-treatment of persons who have been extradited to Northern Ireland from the Republic? If there is, I am not aware of it. No doubt the Minister will tell us.
I am also curious to know whether the Government would like to contemplate the probable attitude of the Irish courts if they were faced with a request to extradite the persons popularly known as the Birmingham Six, had they ever made it to the Irish Republic. One might also consider what would happen if the British authorities were now to apply for the exrtradition of those who have recently been named as the real Birmingham bombers. Can one imagine any Irish court extraditing such people to the United Kingdom? Twenty-one people were killed in Birmingham and 160 suffered injuries. No doubt many of those injuries were horrific and their effects remain with the people who are still alive. I do not believe that there is any chance of getting any of the people responsible back to the United Kingdom for questioning or trial under any circumstances.
The events of last weekend provide the Irish Republic with another excuse for not returning suspects into the hands of British justice. Given the attitude of the Irish courts, how likely are they to extradite to this country a terrorist who has created murder or mayhem of any kind, when they can point to the events at Strangeways and say that there is no way in which an Irish suspect would be safe? I refer to ill-treatment not by prison officials but by other prisoners. That is a second course that the Irish courts will undoubtedly pick up and use very soon.
One is also seeing the revival of the political offence as a let-off for terrorists of every description. In the Shannon case, one justice held that an offence—which is shorthand for murder or brutal maiming at the hands of the IRA


—could be political even if it went beyond reasonable political activity. At the same hearing, another justice held that political immunity depended on the motivation of the individual to be extradited, his intent, and the true nature of the offence—and that all were to be assessed by their closeness to the alleged political objective. That was the reason used in the most recent case to let a suspect off the hook.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) recently drew the attention of the House to the Irish Supreme Court judgment that political exemption from extradition should apply to persons accused of politically motivated offences when the object of such offences was to secure the ultimate unity of the country. That confirms what has long been the practical outcome of the decisions of the Irish courts.
If the Minister will refer to questions on extradition that I have asked down the years, and to the answers given by his right hon. and hon. Friends and by himself, he will see that between 1971 and 1987, the Irish Republic made 159 requests to Northern Ireland for extraditions. Only two were refused. One hundred and seventeen were granted, and 49—just under three per year—were not granted for various reasons. Over the same period, extradition requests made by Northern Ireland numbered 411. Fifty-seven of those were refused, 118 were granted, and 237 were not granted—presumably because the suspects were either in prison or could not be found. Another parliamentary answer confirmed that between 1971 and 1989, 110 people were extradited for non-terrorist offences from the Republic to Northern Ireland, and only seven for terrorist offences. Those figures tell it all.
Where does that leave the people who formulated, signed, welcomed and defended—and still defend—the agreement of 15 November 1985? The hope of extraditions has been exposed for the shabby, bloody deception that it was. The figures reveal the spider's web into which this nation's leaders wandered, against every word of advice offered by the Members of Parliament who sit on this Bench. Those figures are proof of the fruits of the 1987 Act and of previous legislation. The evil consequences of the Anglo-Irish Agreement are only now beginning to blossom, and will continue to do so in a dreadful fashion over the next few years.
The two Irish Supreme Court decisions—the second growing out of the McGimpsey case—mean that those who have murdered, bombed, maimed and destroyed will never be extradited. An excuse will always be found by the Republic for not doing so, not least because its constitution does not recognise the validity of the extradition provisions. There is no way that the Irish courts can ever permit extraditions, because they do not acknowledge the existence in law of Northern Ireland. It is not going too far to say that extradition to Ulster from the Irish Republic could be deemed by the Republic as unconstitutional. I have listened carefully to the Government over the past few weeks, and their words show that they are still fogbound or lost in a time warp some time before the McGimpsey, Finucane and Clarke cases. But Ministers are far too clever and well advised by the Law Officers of the Crown and by their own officials to really be so lost. My belief is that the Government realise how much things have gone wrong.
What will the Government do about that? Will they allow murder to continue in Ulster? Will they go on

shutting their eyes to the real world of terrorism that contaminates our land and blights our lives? Will they for ever close their ears to the counselling they receive from these Benches and from others, when ignoring it has led them into the bog in which they now find themselves? The Government know what must be done, and they know how to do it. Will they make a start? The Irish Republic, because of its written constitution, is frozen in its attitude and will never or can never deliver on the recognition of Ulster or the extradition of those who pursue the concept of a united Ireland through violence.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): I congratulate the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) on obtaining this Adjournment debate on a subject that is both complex and important. Extradition is a vital weapon in the fight against crime of any sort, be it of terrorist or non-terrorist.
I do not question that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House are united in the desire to see terrorist offenders in particular brought to justice. That having been said, extradition is a matter fraught both with practical and political difficulties, and any failure of the system is given a far higher profile than are the successes that are achieved.
The hon. Gentleman's first concern, rightly, is with the recent cases of Finucane and Clarke, in which the Irish Supreme Court refused extradition to Northern Ireland.. I will return to those cases shortly. Before I do so, the House may find it helpful if I say a few words about the mechanics of the system.
Extradition is an arrangement designed to prevent criminals escaping justice by crossing national frontiers, and it therefore plays an integral part in the criminal justice process of modern states. Extradition between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom is operated under a system known as the backing of warrants. This arrangement does not for the most part involve the two Governments but is operated on a police-to-police basis. The original and underlying premise of the system is that the two jurisdictions are sufficiently close, in terms of the workings of their criminal justice systems, for a warrant issued in one country to be acceptable in the other, without the full extradition proceedings that either would require of a third country.
The procedure is, at least in principle, relatively simple. Despite the apparent simplicity, however, almost all cases now involve lengthy appeals, the outcome of which has been, and remains, unpredictable. Any individual case can throw up difficulties on a number of levels, but, broadly speaking, there are three categories of difficulty—administrative, legal, and political.
On the administrative side, the mechanics of processing a request involve a number of different agencies in both the requesting and requested states and co-ordination is thus complex. In past cases, problems have arisen over the immensely detailed scrutiny which the Irish courts have applied in the United Kingdom warrants. A good deal of work by lawyers skilled in this specialist field is often required. We believe that the resulting problems have now largely been solved as a result of a considerable investment of effort by the authorities on both sides, and the production of a detailed checklist.

So far as extradition between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland is concerned, there are two particular problems which have figured largely in recent cases. One is the provision of the Irish constitution which requires the Irish courts to protect Irish citizens from the threat of attack to their life, liberty, or property. That provision is the key on which fugitives have hung defences against extradition based on the argument that their life, person or property will be liable to attack if they are returned.
The second problem which commonly arises is where the defence case rests on the claim that the offence in question was political. That is a particularly sensitive issue in requests for fugitives to be returned to Northern Ireland. Close examination is made by defence lawyers of political issues in Northern Ireland which can be used to seek to justify fugitives' assertions that their offences were legitimately politically motivated. Extradition hearings have often, in the past, turned into debates on Irish history and political conditions in the Province, and the fairness of the administration of justice in Northern Ireland is often put unfairly under the microscope.
The backing of warrants system is a most important means of bringing to justice terrorist offenders who have escaped to the Republic, not least because it is right in principle that, whenever possible, fugitive offenders should be brought to justice in the jurisdiction where their crimes are committed. However, we do have provisions in our law, and in Irish law, whereby persons charged with the commission of certain serious crimes in Northern Ireland can be tried in the Republic, and vice versa. To date, 12 persons have been convicted in the Republic for crimes committed in Northern Ireland, and three acquitted. Four persons have been convicted in Northern Ireland for crimes committed in the Republic.
Let me turn to specifics. Our utter dismay, bordering on disbelief, at the widely reported decisions of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Ireland not to return to Northern Ireland two convicted terrorists is a matter of public record. I shall return to them shortly. First, however, I should like to set them against the background of the generally improved working of extradition arrangements in recent times.
Since January 1988, 14 persons have been returned to the United Kingdom. A further seven persons are currently before the Irish courts. Of those 14 returned, three were returned to Northern Ireland in connection with terrorist-related offences, two of whom were Maze escapers. One further person was returned to Northern Ireland for a non-terrorist offence.
As far as Dermot Finucane and James Clarke are concerned, both men were convicted in Northern Ireland of serious terrorist offences: Finucane was serving 18 years for possession of firearms and ammunition and Clarke 18 years for the attempted murder of a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment. The lengths of those sentences speak for themselves; people are not sentenced to 18 years for trivial misdemeanours. Both were involved in the mass break-out from the Maze prison in 1983. They were subsequently arrested in the Republic where the district court made orders for their extradition.
Appeals on behalf of both men were quashed by the High Court in the Republic. They were, however, upheld

on 13 March in the Supreme Court, their last court of appeal. As a result, these two convicted terrorists are now at large in the Republic. That was a judicial decision, but I, like many members of this House, and many people throughout the country, find it baffling and deplorable. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, among others, has made those feelings very clear. That dismay was also expressed by some in the Republic of Ireland.
The judgments were lengthy and complex and are still being studied closely. Their full implications for future cases may become clear only in the light of experience. In both the Finucane and Clarke cases, the Supreme Court found that extradition should be refused on the ground that the men's constitutional rights might be breached if returned because of what the court called a "probable risk" that they would be assaulted on return to the Maze. In addition, it was found that Finucane, but not Clarke, was entitled to take advantage of the political offence exception.
The slur cast on the professionalism of the Northern Ireland prison service by the first of those findings is deeply offensive and wholly unjustifiable. I believe firmly that the prison regime offered in Northern Ireland is both innovative and constructive, administered by dedicated, trained, and professional staff providing a service of which we can all be proud.
No one who has been returned to Northern Ireland, whether from the Republic or elsewhere, has subsequently taken any sort of action alleging physical ill-treatment in prison. I do not for a moment believe that had Finucane and Clarke been returned they would have suffered such ill-treatment; nor, I believe, does anyone else who knows anything of the present Northern Ireland prison system. It is the Government's view that the Supreme Court's opinion in this part of its judgment is completely unjustified on the known facts about today's prison regime.
What is even more disturbing, however, is the Supreme Court's acceptance in Finucane's case that he was entitled to lay claim to the political offence exception. The implications of that finding are extremely serious and could, potentially, affect future cases.
I shall not rehearse the history of the political offence exception in extradition from the Republic of Ireland to the United Kingdom. It is in some respects a sorry story, but I believe that, before those judgments, we had reached a position where those sought for terrorist crimes in Northern Ireland could lay claim to the political offence exception only with difficulty. The judgments have now rolled back from that position. They are a step in a very unhelpful and regrettable direction, following on from some previous very positive moves in the Republic.
The hon. Gentleman referred several times to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and he rightly pointed out that following this debate there will be a debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). Like him, I do not wish to trespass into the territory of that debate, but I must make one or two comments because the hon. Member for Londonderry, East, raised the issue and because they are relevant to the question of extradition. Since the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, we have made progress on extradition. We are pleased with that, but we cannot be satisfied with things as they are.

Mr. James Kilfedder: The hon. Gentleman has made a statement that I do not understand.


He has said that, since the signing of the Anglo-Eire agreement, the Government have made progress with Dublin on extradition. Surely, however, the rules were changed by the Dublin Government after the signing of the Anglo-Eire agreement, to the detriment of ease of extradition.

Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Member for Londonderry, East made a similar point and quoted my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but things have improved. Arrangements have been brought up to date in a way that has made it easier to pursue the extradition process, not least in terms of what I said earlier about the detailed arrangements that now exist. However, my hon. Friend will have heard me say just before he rose to his feet that I am not satisfied with things as they are—nor are the Government.
We shall be pursuing urgently with the Government of the Republic of Ireland our concern that the system as a whole should work effectively. I do not underrate the difficulties caused by these recent cases, but by close co-operation with the Irish Government we must find ways to overcome them.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement was never an agreement to agree about everything, but it does offer a framework for discussion of such matters. The agreement provided a firm framework for our discussions with the Irish Government about ratification of the European convention on the suppression of terrorism, without which we would now be in a much worse position than we are today. It will also provide a framework for our future exchanges with the Irish Government about the implications of the Finucane and Clarke judgments and the urgent action which needs to be taken in consequence of those judgments. These functions are vital.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: During the discussions with the Irish Government under the auspices of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, will the

Government also be pursuing the need to extend the role played by the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act? According to the figures that the Minister has given, in so far as it has operated it has been reasonably successful.

Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman knows that that Act is one of a number of ways in which we can consider these various matters and seek to make progress. It is a consideration in each of the cases. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will certainly bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's comments during the conference meetings. I shall specifically draw them to his attention.
Let me finish by reiterating how important extradition is. Both the British and the Irish Governments have pledged themselves to ensure that effective arrangements are in place for dealing with fugitive offenders. Extradition is a vital factor in this. The importance attached to it by the Irish authorities is easily demonstrated. It was they who originally sought the extraditions of Finucane and Clarke on our behalf and who continued to make strenuous efforts, throughout their judicial system, to bring the cases to a successful conclusion.
Convicted terrorists and those facing charges for terrorist offences must not be allowed to take refuge from justice in any civilised country. I believe it to be self-evident that people of good will throughout the world should regard terrorists as their common enemy, as we do, and should be committed to take whatever steps may be necessary to bring them to justice. That truism alone must give all right-thinking British and Irish people cause for concern at the present position on extradition in the Irish Republic. But, further to that, the Irish Government are committed in the context of the agreement, and particularly in the context of the recent review, to ensuring, with us, fair and effective extradition arrangements between our two countries. We will strive, with them, to ensure that such arrangements are brought about in future.

Anglo-Irish Agreement

Mr. Ian Gow: Apart from the Republic of Argentina, which lays claim to part of Her Majesty's dominions—what it describes as the Malvinas—the only other country which lays claim to any part of Her Majesty's dominions is the Republic of Ireland. That was highlighted in the debate to which he have just listened.
I want to remind the House of the terms of articles 2 and 3 of the Republic's constitution. Article 2 says:
The national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas.
Article 3 says:
Pending the re-integration of the national territory, and without prejudice to the right of the Parliament and Government established by this Constitution … the laws enacted by that Parliament shall have the like area and extent of application".
In the McGimpsey judgment, given in the Irish Supreme Court last month, these words appeared:
The reintegration of the national territory is a constitutional imperative.
The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Dublin to refuse the request for extradition followed after the judgment in the McGimpsey case. Many who are expert in the law of the Republic of Ireland believe that the decision to refuse to grant extradition—not in the case of two suspected terrorists but in the case of two convicted terrorists—depended to a substantial degree on the earlier judgment in the McGimpsey case.
It was possible because my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had in mind the profoundly objectionable terms of articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution that she said in this place:
no commitment exists for Her Majesty's Government to consult the Irish Government on matters affecting Northern Ireland. That has always been our position. We reiterate and emphasise it, so that everyone is clear about it."—[Official Report, 29 July 1982; Vol. 28, c. 1226.]
On 17 May 1984, again speaking in this place, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
The constitutional future of Northern Ireland is a matter for Northern Ireland and this Parliament, and for no one else."—[Official Report, 17 May 1984; Vol. 60, c. 503.]
However, the year after that last quotation appeared in the Official Report on 17 May 1984, the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed. That agreement gave to the Government of the Irish Republic—to the Government of the only country whose constitution laid claim to Northern Ireland—the right to put forward views and proposals about how Northern Ireland was to be governed and laid upon Her Majesty's Government an obligation, if they disagreed with those views and proposals, to make determined efforts to resolve differences.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement specifically said that the Government of the Irish Republic were there to represent nationalists. You know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that four nationalists have been elected to this Parliament. Three of them have taken their seats. The proper people to represent nationalists in dealings with Her Majesty's Ministers are those who have been elected to this place, and not the Government of a foreign power. To confer upon the Irish Republic responsibility for the representation of some of Her Majesty's subjects when those subjects have at least in this respect an equal right with all other of Her Majesty's subjects to elect their own representatives, was intensely divisive.
If right hon. and hon. Members think that I am going too far when I say that Her Majesty's Government accepted that the Government of the Irish Republic were to represent nationalists, article 4 of the agreement, states:
The Conference shall be a framework within which the Irish Government may put forward views and proposals on the modalities of bringing about devolution in Northern Ireland in so far as they relate to the interests of the minority community.
I shall return to article 4 later in my speech.

Mr. William Ross: Surely what the hon. Gentleman said about the Irish Government representing only nationalists is the only position that that Government could take, as their Supreme Court has clarified the matter. We can all see the reasoning behind it, which was that they have a legal claim to Northern Ireland and a constitutional imperative to pursue the objective of a united Ireland. As Unionists object to that, there is no way in which the Irish Government could legally, within their own constitution, represent a Unionist viewpoint.

Mr. Gow: I agree entirely.
There are some Members of Parliament, among whom I am not to be included, who believe that Her Majesty's Government entered into the Anglo-Irish Agreement in something other than good faith. I have never doubted the good faith of Her Majesty's Government or of the Government of the Irish Republic in entering into the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Despite the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister which I read to the House, I believe that she, above all people, was appalled, as we all were, by the continuing violence in Northern Ireland and that she, above all, was mindful of the misery caused to wives who were turned into widows and children who were turned into orphans. She was as appalled as any Member of Parliament by the misery caused by the terror, by the continuing division between the communities in the Province, and by the fact that at that time unemployment in Northern Ireland was worse than in any other part of the United Kingdom. She and Her Majesty's Ministers wished genuinely, sincerely and honourably to redress those evils in Northern Ireland. They really believed that the agreement would bring the Province peace, stability and reconciliation. To my deep regret, I was not able to share that belief, but of course the Government believed that the Anglo-Irish Agreement would be acceptable to nationalists.
The Foreign Office, which was the principal Department involved in the protracted negotiations, advised the Government that the agreement would be welcomed in Dublin, in the Vatican, in Roman Catholic Europe, and, above all, in Washington, where it was believed that the signing of the agreement would lead to a diminution of financial and material support for terrorist organisations in the Province. Of course, when they heard that that agreement, if signed along the lines of the final draft, would be widely welcomed and would restore the confidence of the nationalists, Her Majesty's Ministers asked one other question. They said, "You have told us how pleased all these other people will be and how the capitals of Europe and even the most important capital of all, Washington, would be pleased, but what will be the reaction of Unionists?"
That is where the Government were so badly advised. They were given the answer, "Paisley will huff and puff, but on the whole Unionists will be well satisfied with the


agreement." The argument ran that the Unionists would be well satisfied because, it was claimed, quite wrongly, that the Irish Government had acknowledged for the first time in article 1 of the agreement that there could be a change in the status of Northern Ireland only if a majority of the people of Northern Ireland wanted it.
However, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will recall the opening words of the Sunningdale communiqué in 1974. For the sake of accuracy, I have a copy of the text of the declaration made at Sunningdale in 1974, 11 years before the Anglo-Irish Agreement was
signed. It stated:
The Irish Government fully accepted and solemnly declared that there could be no change in the status of Northern Ireland until a majority of the people of Northern Ireland desired a change in that status.
The British Cabinet genuinely believed when it sanctioned the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement that the Republic had taken a great new step forward in acknowledging that for the first time. But it was not so.
The second reason why it was claimed that the Unionists ought to be well satisfied with the agreement was that it would lead to a new era of co-operation in the defeat of terrorism between the Government of the Irish Republic and Her Majesty's Government and between the Garda and the Royal Ulster Constabulary. But the Anglo-Irish Agreement was not necessary to secure co-operation in the defeat of terrorism.
There is no such agreement between France and Spain whereby France is allowed to put forward views and proposals on how the Basque country should be governed. That is not necessary to secure co-operation between Spain and France in the defeat of terrorism. Relations between France and the United Kingdom, in regard to anti-terrorist measures, could not possibly be better, happier, or more effective, and we are able to achieve that without giving France the right to propose how Alderney, Sark or Jersey should be governed.
It is a myth to say that a precondition of co-operation was the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. If that were the reality, and if the Republic had told Her Majesty's Government that they would co-operate only if they were given the right to put forward views and proposals about how part of the United Kingdom should be governed, that would be the most massive indictment of the honour, integrity and commitment of the Government of the Irish Republic to ending violence.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State looks puzzled at my assertion that that was the advice given to the Cabinet. He has no need to take my word for it. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave an interview to the Belfast Telegraph just five weeks after the agreement was signed. For the sake of accuracy, I have a copy of the interview which she gave to Mr. Desmond McCartan. She was asked about the reaction of the Unionists to the
agreement, and she replied:
the reaction has been much worse than I expected. One is trying to find out why.
She did not say that the reaction has been "worse than I expected", but "much worse".
The Prime Minister said that she was trying to find out why. What does that mean? It means that the Prime Minister was told that the reaction of Unionists would be one of support, whereas it turned out to be one of hostility. The Prime Minister and the Cabinet had been misled and had not been properly advised. We can readily understand why that was. The Government of the Irish Republic had

taken the SDLP into their confidence, but Her Majesty's Government had had no discussions with Unionists beforehand, although anyone with the slightest knowledge of Northern Ireland would not have had to have discussions with Unionist Members to know the views of the people of Northern Ireland.
The way in which the Anglo-Irish Agreement is viewed by the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland in April 1990 is no more favourable than it was on 15 November 1985. There is a sense of disbelief that we could confer that place of special privilege on the Government of the Irish Republic, whose constitution still lays claim to Northern Ireland; a sense of disbelief that we should ask another Government to represent some of Her Majesty's subjects when those subjects have the right to elect their own Members.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that the Irish Government are enabled to represent the nationalist community in the north implies that Her Majesty's Government do not seem to feel able sufficiently to represent the interests of those citizens of the United Kingdom in a way that is fair and even-handed in relation to other United Kingdom citizens?

Mr. Gow: When dealing with any of the four countries that make up the United Kingdom, Her Majesty's Government have a duty to take account of the interests of all of the people in each of those four countries. For example, the Secretary of State for Scotland must ensure that, in the administration of Scotland, nationalists, socialists, liberals and those who, like myself, believe in the Union are all governed under a fair and just law. He must ensure that each citizen, whatever his or her political or religious beliefs, shall be treated in the same way under a just law.
It is the duty of Her Majesty's Ministers to safeguard and protect nationalists—and republicans—in Northern Ireland. I am wholly opposed at all times, and in all circumstances, to any discrimination in Northern Ireland on the ground that a citizen is a Roman Catholic, a nationalist or a republican. I shall make only one caveat: that nationalists in Northern Ireland, whom I acknowledge, honour and respect, must accept their responsibility to behave as responsible citizens, obeying the law at all times. That means doing their utmost to defeat terrorism. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) that the Government in every part of the kingdom must protect all their citizens, whatever their views, under a just law.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement did not get off to a happy start, because it was in two versions—the Irish text and the United Kingdom text. The Irish text did not refer to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is not very surprising, in view of recent judgments from the Supreme Court, and in view of articles 2 and 3. It was not a happy start to a solemn treaty and agreement when the texts did not coincide.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on the robust reply that he gave to the previous debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross). The words that fell from his lips were carefully fashioned—and were approved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. His description of the judgments of the Supreme Court was "baffling and deplorable", and I agree entirely with that choice of words.


However, my hon. Friend's efforts, and those of the Government, to secure much better—indeed, proper—extradition arrangements will be wished godspeed by every hon. Member. It is a terrible commentary on the evils of terrorism that on a supposedly friendly country, with whose Government we have entered into a treaty, should be conferred a special provision which means that that country above all others—a country that has suffered from terrorism—is now perceived, with justification, to be a safe haven for terrorists.
In the cases of Finucane and Clarke, we are referring not to suspected terrorists but to people who were convicted of grave terrorist crimes. During their escape from the Maze prison, further grave crimes were committed. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will accept that it is not impossible that those two, whose extradition was refused, will now engage in further terrorist activity, and that is greatly to be deplored.
No one who believes that the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement will fail to bring to the Province that peace, stability and reconciliation that we all want to see, and no one who is critical of the agreement, should criticise it without offering an alternative. Clearly the agreement can be changed or amended at any time with the consent of both parties. If my right hon. Friend the Minister of State makes an agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, however solemn its terms—whether it is registered with the Comptroller of the Household, the United Nations, Mr. Delors or anyone who is now in fashion—it can be altered at the request of the two parties who made it.
I have submitted to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and to the then Foreign Secretary—now Lord President of the Council—the text of a revised Anglo-Irish Agreement. When my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland arrived at Stormont or Hillsborough, he also was a beneficiary—I am not sure whether he regarded it in those terms—as I sent him the text of my alternative to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. That alternative could have been fashioned with the consent of the two contracting Governments. The revised agreement did not give the Republic the right to advance views and proposals about how one part of the kingdom was governed—or, as article 4 says, the right to put forward proposals on behalf of nationalists as to what form of devolution there should be. It envisaged something that had been fashioned earlier by the Conservative and Unionist party.
Shortly after my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was elected leader of the Conservative party on 11 February 1975, she appointed as shadow Secretary of State her friend and mine Airey Neave, who held the post from February 1975 until he was assassinated in the precincts of this House on 30 March 1979. Just before he was assassinated, the shadow Cabinet had agreed—you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will not be surprised to learn that it had done so without much discussion—the Conservative party's policies for Northern Ireland. The manifesto stated:
In the absence of devolved Government, we shall seek to set up a regional council or councils with widely devolved powers over local matters.
I am still waiting for Ministers to implement the policy that had been fashioned by Airey Neave with the consent

and concurrence of the leader of the Ulster Unionist party and, if I am allowed to say this without any presumption, with the concurrence of the hon. Member for Eastbourne.
We are still awaiting the implementation of that policy. The conclusion that Airey Neave had reached in his four years of stewardship as shadow Secretary of State was that the least dangerous and most hopeful way forward was to treat Northern Ireland as closely as possible to the way that we treat the rest of the United Kingdom. That did not mean identical treatment, because England, Wales and Scotland are governed differently, but it recognised the most important truth that the House can learn—that the most important factor in prolonging terrorism in Northern Ireland is uncertainty about the constitutional future of the Province. Ministers have not yet understood that truth.
The uncertainty about Ulster's constitutional future was not diminished but increased by the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The certainty about Ulster's constitutional future has not been increased by the two judgments in the Supreme Court in Dublin last month; it is the uncertainty that has been increased by those judgments.
It is perfectly possible, despite the commitment in article 4, for Ministers to confer modest additional powers on the 26 district councils in Northern Ireland. Dublin would not like us doing so, but we do not need its consent. Nothing prevents my right hon. Friend the Minister of State from trying to set up a regional council in Northern Ireland with some of the powers enjoyed by regional councils in Scotland and county councils in England and Wales. Nothing stops him bringing to an end the absurdity that we legislate for 1·5 million of the Queen's subjects in Northern Ireland by unamendable Order in Council, which we would not accept for our constituents.
Sometimes, the policy that I am advocating is described as integration. It could perfectly properly be described as administrative devolution. The time will come when Ministers realise that the surest protection for the minority and the greatest guarantee of stability in Northern Ireland is to adopt that policy, of which the late Airey Neave was the principal architect. The sooner we do so, the greater will be the prospect of peace, stability and reconciliation which all decent men want to see.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Cope): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) on securing this debate and on the manner in which he has pursued and promoted his views on the subject since his resignation, which I much respected, from the Government. In diverging from my hon. Friend, as I will, he knows that I have every respect for his parliamentary and political manners. Once again, he clearly set out his views. I observed that he dwelt a little more on the past of the agreement. The debate was advertised as being about the future of the agreement, but I read from one to the other.

Mr. William Ross: Has it a future?

Mr. Cope: Perhaps that was the point that my hon. Friend was making.
It is my task to make it clear that the Government remain committed to the Anglo-Irish Agreement and to the principles that underline it and are embodied in it. The


agreement was intended to address how the legitimate interests of the Irish Government in matters within Northern Ireland, particularly regarding the minority community, could be acknowledged without diluting United Kingdom sovereignty or the status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. In his closing remarks, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne demonstrated the sovereignty of Parliament and the Government's advice to it on various matters.
More important, article 1 of the agreement provides a formal acknowledgement by both Governments of the factual status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom; that that status would be changed only if and when a majority of the people of Northern Ireland wished it; and that if that should occur, both Governments would facilitate it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) said in the House on 14 March in replying to an Adjournment debate, that firm bedrock has not been shaken by the McGimpsey judgment.
The agreement provides a structure in which views and proposals can be put forward by the Irish Government, in particular in the absence of a devolved Government, and a framework in which the differences that inevitably arise between us from time to time can be resolved in a constructive and co-operative fashion, with the minimum, although not always with the absence, of acrimony. Such differences are inevitable and it is better to try to resolve them through such a framework.
I hope that all hon. Members will agree that a close relationship with the Irish Republic, as provided by the agreement, is an essential component of our efforts to ensure that terrorism does not succeed in Northern Ireland. This morning's earlier discussion on extradition emphasised that point.
The conference, supported by the secretariat, has provided the forum in which Ministers and senior officials on both sides can maintain close and frequent contact. That has inevitably given each side a greater awareness of the political and other realities against which the other side has to operate and has helped to reduce the risk of misunderstandings arising over particular incidents and has increased the possibility that problems will be resolved in a constructive and co-operative spirit. It has enabled each side to take decisions within its jurisdiction with greater knowledge and awareness of the likely impact on and reactions of the other side. That does not mean that we do not disagree with out Irish colleagues on some issues, but it does mean that we have a way of trying to resolve them.
The agreement has been, and continues to be, widely welcomed internationally, where it has been recognised as making a very positive contribution to addressing the fundamental problems of Northern Ireland.
My hon. Friend has criticised the agreement again today, because it treats Northern Ireland differently from the rest of the United Kingdom. However, we must recognise that, in Northern Ireland there are two distinct communities and that in that sense, it is not like any other part of the United Kingdom. The two communities have different aspirations, traditions and allegiances. There is, regrettably, as the House knows all too well, a history of animosity and conflict between them. The agreement provides a means of giving recognition to the identities of the two communities in a framework that ensures that the

wishes of a majority shall prevail. Their wishes are, of course, that Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. William Ross: The Minister is now talking about the interests of the majority. Does he remember that, a moment ago, he was talking about the input of the Government of the Irish Republic? Will he, on behalf of the Government, now give the House an assurance that, on all future occasions when Ministers happen to be speaking to the Government of the Irish Republic, they will keep firmly in the forefront of their mind the fact that the Government of the Irish Republic have been instructed by their own Supreme Court that at every opportunity they must pursue the objective of a united Ireland and use whatever constitutional or other means are available at the time?

Mr. Cope: In seeking to balance the interests of the majority and those of the minority on different occasions, which it is our responsibility to do, we try to keep in mind all relevant considerations, including the views of the Irish Government and the factors that may have led them to present those views to us.
For the avoidance of doubt, I should just add that it is my wish also that Northern Ireland should remain a part of the United Kingdom. I hope that it does, but it is the wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland rather than my own wish which matters and should be paramount, as the agreement recognises.
In addition to enshrining the principle of consent as the basis for determining the future of Northern Ireland, the agreement has provided a valuable forum in which cross-border co-operation in security and other matters can be pursued. There is absolutely no doubt that close co-operation in security is essential to our efforts to defeat terrorism. Nor is there any doubt that there have been improvements since the signing of the agreement, and there is now a much more effective level of co-operation between the two police forces. However, there is no room for complacency and I do not say that all is perfect. There remains much work to be done at the political level to ensure that security co-operation is as effective as it can be. The advantage of the agreement is that it provides us with the mechanism through which the two Governments' shared interest in bringing terrorism to an end can be advanced.
The British Government have always made it clear, of course, that they do not regard the agreement as a panacea which provides the solution to all Northern Ireland's problems. Although, as I have said, it provides a valuable framework in which relations between the two Governments on Northern Ireland matters can be conducted, we do not regard it as immutable or as incapable of improvement.

Mr. David Winnick: Does the Minister agree that, apart from the co-operation between Ministers in the Irish Republic and in the United Kingdom, which I fully endorse, there is a strong case for continuing co-operation, now that it has started, between Members of Paliament in the Republic and those in this country? Like the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter), I participated in the first session of the new British parliamentary body. I look on that as a welcome initiative. Does the Minister agree?

Mr. Cope: It is a helpful development. A review of the working of the Anglo-Irish Conference—

Mr. James Kilfedder: I appreciate that the Minister has a full speech there in justification of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. He has stated that the agreement has provided great benefits to the people of the United Kingdom—forgetting the Irish Republic at present. We had good relations with Dublin over security and there was a degree of co-operation. If anything, it has worsened since the signing of the agreement. Will the Minister now list the benefits that have accrued to the United Kingdom as a result of signing the agreement?

Mr. Cope: I have already given my opinion, which is that benefits have accrued in security co-operation, and I shall talk about some of the other ways in which I believe benefits have accrued and in which co-operation has improved.
A review of the working of the intergovernmental conference, as prescribed under article 11 of the agreement, was completed in May last year. The communiqué recording the outcome of that review and a document setting out developments that have taken place since the signing of the agreement are available in the Library of the House. The two Governments reaffirmed, in paragraph 27 of the review communiqué, the fundamental objectives of the agreement in promoting peace and stability in Northern Ireland, diminishing the divisions between the two traditions, creating a new climate of friendship and co-operation between them and improving co-operation in combating terrorism.

Mr. Barry Porter: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Cope: No, as I have given way several times.
The two Governments concluded at that stage that the conference had proved its value and that no fundamental change was necessary in its role. They also agreed that if in future it were to appear that the objectives of the agreement could be more effectively served by changes in the scope and nature of the working of the conference, they would be ready in principle to consider such changes. That is relevant to one of the fundamental provisions of the agreement, article 4, to which hon. Members have already referred, which refers to the British Government's policy—which has the support of the Irish Government, too—that responsibility in respect of certain matters within the powers of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland should be devolved within Northern Ireland on a basis that would secure widespread acceptance throughout the community.
It remains the Government's view that it is desirable for locally elected representatives in Northern Ireland to have a greater say in the decisions that affect the lives of the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Barry Porter: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Cope: No, as I have given way several times.
In order for this to happen, it is essential for dialogue to take place between the Northern Ireland political parties and with the British Government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has, as the House knows, been having a series of meetings with Northern Ireland political leaders to explore what scope there is for making progress.
The judgment of the Irish Supreme Court in the McGimpsey case should not be allowed to block the path to political progress in Northern Ireland. We are offering talks on political progress without preconditions. Unionists may, therefore, legitimately seek change in articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution as part of their list of objectives to be achieved from any talks. I draw their attention to a speech made by an Irish Minister in the debate in the Irish Senate on the McGimpsey judgment, in which he did not say that the Irish would never change their constitution, but said that they did not want to change it in a vacuum and that they would be prepared to examine and review the articles in the context of new political arrangements that might emerge in these islands. Few would doubt that the amendment of articles 2 and 3 of that constitution would have a most important and positive effect on the atmosphere within Northern Ireland and on relations between the Republic and the United Kingdom.
There can be differing views about the form and extent of any devolution of powers, but there appears to be common recognition that devolution is the basis on which widespread acceptance is most likely to be achieved and that both sides of the community must play a proper role in any future institutions of government in Northern Ireland. The achievement of devolution on a basis that will secure widespread acceptance is a central part of the agenda set by the agreement. That does not mean devolution within the agreement, but it does mean that we look to the Irish Government to support our efforts to facilitate the process. As any political progress within Northern Ireland will have implications for relations with the Republic of Ireland, we have kept in close touch with the Irish Government about ways in which progress might be achieved. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expects to meet his Irish co-chairman of the conference again in the near future to continue that discussion.
The British Government hold fast to the view that a close and co-operative relationship with the Republic of Ireland is essential. For our part, we shall seek to sustain and develop the relationship. Equally, we shall seek to heal any damage to the relationship caused by external factors and to resolve disagreements between the two Governments in an amicable, if sometimes forthright, manner.

It being Eleven o'clock MR. SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Resolution [16 March].

Strangeways Prison

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I think that I ought to make a further statement to the House about the serious events at Manchester prison over the past few days before we rise for the Easter recess.
Since I reported to the House last Monday, prison staff have continued progressively to regain control of the buildings. During the same period, a large number of prisoners have surrendered. But 12 prisoners can be seen inside the prison, who have been identified by name. Pending a final check of our records, I cannot say whether there might not be more.
Negotiations are continuing in order to bring this appalling incident to a close, and I know that the governor and his staff, who throughout have conducted themselves with great courage and professionalism, will continue to do so. I should also like to thank the police and the fire and ambulance services for the work that they have done.
I am very sorry to have to inform the House that a Manchester prison officer died in hospital this morning. He had been on duty on Sunday 1 April, and, although he suffered no injuries during the disturbance, he was admitted to hospital later that day. I wish to express my deep sympathy to his family in their loss. The House will already be aware that a remand prisoner, Mr. Derek White, who suffered serious injuries in the course of the events of last Sunday and who was admitted to hospital on that day, died as a result of those injuries on 3 April. Again, I offer my sympathy to his relatives.
During the past few days a number of prison officers have also been injured, but all but one have now been discharged from hospital.
The Greater Manchester police have opened a murder inquiry, following the death of Mr. White, and other criminal investigations into the incident.
A special telephone number for the use of relatives concerned as to the whereabouts of individual prisoners in Manchester prison at the start of the incident has been available since Sunday. It is 061-817 8178. All governors receiving prisoners from Manchester have also been asked to enable them to make a telephone call to a relative or friend without charge.
Urgent consideration is also being given to the new arrangements which will need to be made to accommodate people committed from the courts in the Manchester area.
I have already expressed my intention to set up an inquiry into this incident as soon as it has been resolved. It will be conducted by Lord Justice Woolf. The terms of reference will be to inquire into the events leading up to the serious disturbance in Her Majesty's prison, Manchester and the action taken to bring it to a conclusion. I intend that the report, which will be separate from, and will not conflict with, the criminal investigation, should be published.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I express my thanks to the Home Secretary for making his statement. I know that he had rightly hoped to make it after the riot had ended, but it is absolutely correct that he should come and tell the House how things stand on this, our last sitting day before Easter.
Once more, I expressed our gratitude to, and admiration for, the police, fire officers, ambulance staff and prison officers who have risked their lives and safety

in Strangeways this week. I offer our condolences to the family of the prison officer whose tragic death the Home Secretary has just reported and to the family of the inmate who died. The fact that the dead prisoner was on remand awaiting trial, and therefore innocent before the law, adds to the tragedy of his death.
The Home Secretary has told us nothing about the reported disturbances in other prisons. Has he anything that he feels he should tell the House on that subject?
I welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman's announcement that an inquiry is to be set up. Today, I want to do no more than to ask the Home Secretary for assurances about the issues that the inquiry will consider. The Home Secretary will know that both the Prison Officers Association and the Prison Governors Association attribute the extent of the riot to under-staffing. The prison governors have been explicit in relating the riot to what they call
taut staffing levels … since the introduction of Fresh Start".
May we be assured that the inquiry will be empowered to make a wide-ranging examination of staffing levels?
The Home Secretary will recall that last Monday I asked him about the warnings of riots in Strangeways and he told the House that no significant warnings had been received. Reports continue of warnings which, at least to the layman, appear to have been significant, and recklessly ignored. May we again be assured that the inquiry will examine the significance of the alleged warnings and the appropriateness of the authorities' reaction to them?
I make no comment and ask no question about operational matters as the siege continues and none of us wishes to do anything that might prevent its speedy resolution, but will the inquiry examine the general principle of containment, rather than forcible entry, on occasions such as this, especially given that it is reported that inside the prison a number of prisoners are being assaulted and other criminal acts are therefore taking place? Perhaps the Home Secretary does not want to comment even in the most oblique way on the subject this morning, in which case I shall understand the absence of an answer, but I hope that the inquiry will examine the principle, because there is great concern throughout the country that bestial and appalling acts are going on inside the prison and the thought of stopping them immediately ought to be in the public mind and under public examination.

Mr. Waddington: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the thanks that he expressed to all those who have had to carry a heavy burden in the past few days and who have performed magnificently. I am grateful also for the condolences that he expressed to the families of the prison officer who died and the prisoner who died.
I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the disturbances that broke out at other prisons are not continuing.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the terms of reference of the inquiry. Of course, it will be up to Lord Justice Woolf to interpret the terms of reference, but he will be concerned to deal with the events leading up to the disturbances and also with the way in which the problem was tackled once those disturbances broke out.
On the question of the reports of warnings, I advise the House and those listening outside to leave these matters now to Lord Justice Woolf. I hope that hon. Members and others will put any evidence in their possession before


Lord Justice Woolf. It is far better that it should be done in that way rather than that reports of one sort or another should be leaked to the press.

Mr. Robert Litherland: May I, in turn, offer my sincere condolences to the bereaved families in this awful affair? It is estimated that prison officers have recaptured more than 50 per cent. of the prisoners. If that is so, surely they must have witnessed signs of the barbaric scenes that have been described, especially in the tabloid press. Will the Home Secretary comment on that?

Mr. Waddington: The prison officers at Strangeways have not seen the result of any barbaric acts. What we do know is that violence must have occurred on the very first day because violence was done to one prisoner, who, unhappily, has since died. I cannot invite anyone in the House to accept a picture of violence occurring since then. Certainly there have been no macabre discoveries by prison officers during the past few days.

Sir John Wheeler: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is great respect for the police, prison officers and others who have been concerned with this disastrous emergency in Manchester? Does he also agree that there is admiration for the tactful way in which the authorities have sought to bring the matter to a peaceful conclusion with the minimum of violence? Does he accept that it is welcome news that there is to be a thorough inquiry by a respected judge into the circumstances and that it is important to await the conclusion of that inquiry before determining the cause of this terrible tragedy? Will he separately bring forward his review of the management structure of the prison service in England and Wales and give further consideration to the plight of overcrowding in the old, inner-city Victorian prisons?

Mr. Waddington: As my hon. Friend knows, we have made considerable inroads into the overcrowding problem, but that problem is undoubtedly concentrated on the old local prisons. That is the trouble. However, one of the tragedies with Manchester is that it is a setback to all the plans that have been put in train and the progress that has already been made to get rid of overcrowding in our prisons.
I heard what my hon. Friend said about the efforts that have been made to bring this terrible event to a peaceful conclusion. Again, all those matters are for Lord Justice Woolf, but many might take the view that, in this kind of incident, one should bend one's efforts towards bringing the matter to an end peacefully, because any other course, when other lives are not imminently in danger, could result in more injuries, if not deaths.

Mr. Alex Carlile: My right hon. and hon. Friends and I would like to join in with the sympathy that has been expressed for the families of the prison officer and the prisoner who have died.
Can the Home Secretary tell us how many prisoners from Strangeways are unaccounted for following the dispersal to other prisons?
I welcome very much the appointment of a very distinguished lord justice of appeal to undertake the inquiry, but will the Home Secretary confirm that Lord Justice Woolf will, as part of his terms of reference, be able

to review how rule 43 is operated, because it appears that one of the problems that has arisen is the juxtaposition of rule 43 restricted prisoners—protected prisoners—with other prisoners who have sought to commit violence against them?

Mr. Waddington: Of course we do not know at this juncture whether we have seen all those inside the prison. The figure that I gave earlier relates to the 12 people who have been identified and seen by prison staff. My latest information is that all the rule 43 prisoners have been accounted for.
Lord Justice Woolf will interpret the terms of reference as he thinks right. Obviously, he is likely to consider where the rule 43 prisoners were. The difficulty in a local prison such as Strangeways is that the young offenders must be separated from the old offenders and those on remand have to be separated from those who have been sentenced. Carrying out that exercise is quite a problem while at the same time separating all rule 43 prisoners not only from their colleagues, but from everyone else.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will my right hon. and learned Friend ask the inquiry to consider whether it was more than just coincidence that this ghastly riot broke out on the same weekend as the serious riots in London? May we use this incident as a turning point to consider a new gaol with a new name, thus putting ghastly Victorian conditions behind us?

Mr. Waddington: It is too early to decide what we should do now after the terrible damage to Strangeways. Clearly I cannot say whether there was any element of copying what might have been seen on the television screens. I do not think that it is helpful to speculate about that.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): Does the Home Secretary agree that if Lord Justice Woolf is to carry out a full and detailed inquiry, it might be wise, bearing in mind the fact that evidence already exists of criminality within the prison, that the inquiry should stretch beyond any prosecutions in respect of the criminality, because those who were there at the time could be granted immunity from subsequent prosecution and perhaps their evidence to the inquiry might be more detailed and valuable?

Mr. Waddington: Any question of immunity is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions. However, there is no reason why the inquiry should touch on the criminal investigation.

Mr. Tony Favell: I want to express my admiration for those involved in dealing with the riot including the police, the fire brigade, the ambulance men and the prison officers, many of whom are my constituents.
Can my right hon. and learned Friend say how wide the inquiry is likely to be? My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) referred to overcrowding in prisons. Many practising lawyers and I are concerned that so many prisoners are inactive in prison. I believe in the old saying, "The devil finds work for idle hands to do." Many prisoners enter gaol without ever having done an honest day's work, and they come out in the same state.

Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend may recall that I quoted some figures the other day. One of the sadnesses of this affair is that great improvements had taken place in the regimes at Manchester during the year or so before the disturbance. The House will forgive me if I repeat the figures that I gave the other day. The hours of activity for convicted adults were 12·79 hours a week last year, but 22·73 hours this year.
There is no doubt that the governor deserves our congratulations on the progress that has been made in Manchester. The other day I referred to the report of the chief inspector of prisons, who had a great deal to say about the progress that has been made in Manchester. He said:
'life at Manchester is a great deal nearer what it should be, both for staff and inmates, than it was some two years ago … There was much more to praise than to decry in an establishment clearly going in the right direction and with an optimistic momentum.'"—[Official Report, 2 April 1990; Vol. 170, c. 904.]

Mr. John Battle: How many prisoners have been transferred to Armley prison, in my constituency, which is already recognised as the most overcrowded prison in Britain? Problems of understaffing have been rumbling on in that prison for some months now. Can the Home Secretary give us positive assurance that additional overcrowding pressure will not simply be transferred from Strangeways to Armley prison in Leeds?

Mr. Waddington: Obviously prisoners had to be transferred, because it was an emergency. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that that had to happen and that there are unfortunate consequences as a result. However, we will do our best to keep the hon. Gentleman informed. If he will get in touch with my office, I will give him what information I can about the transfer of prisoners to Armley.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: My right hon. and learned Friend has said that there have been no fatalities beyond the two that he mentioned. Will he comment on an extremely disturbing report on the "Today" programme this morning, in which a solicitor acting for one of the prisoners reported that the prisoner had said that he had seen two men who had been hanged and men who had been thrown over balconies? I understand that some of those issues are matters for the inquiry, but it is important to establish the extent of the brutality because the public should be aware of it. Will my right hon. and learned Friend comment on that?

Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend will recall that a very short time ago I said that all the rule 43 prisoners had been accounted for. So far, no bodies have been found. Obviously one does not want to say categorically that we will not come across a tragedy, but that is the position at present.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Does the Home Secretary accept that prison officers in various prisons that have accepted people from Strangeways should also be praised because of the difficulties that they face? In Liverpool, they accepted the situation with proper discussion and so on.
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that people are getting information as quickly as they should when they find that relatives in prison are perhaps missing and they do not know what has happened to them? They

are anxious, particularly when they read in the gutter press horrific stories of 20 bodies being seen and so on. Such reports may or may not be right, but they worry people.
The telephone number that the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave is all right, but the authorities cannot always give the answers. When prisoners are identified and their whereabouts and what has happened to them are known, I should have thought that it was the responsibility of the Home Office to let their relatives know as soon as possible so that worry is lifted from the people concerned.

Mr. Waddington: I appreciate the importance of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I certainly echo his thanks to the staff of other prisons who have had to bear a considerable burden in the past few days, and have borne it extremely well. The telephone number I mentioned has been available since Sunday. Obviously, we shall do our best to inform people, but people in prison now have the facility to ring their relatives, and people with members of their families in prison are invited to ring that number.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Will my right hon. and learned Friend pass on my congratulations to the governor and prison officers? Having an aging prison in my constituency, I know just how difficult conditions can be for them. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that his twin-track approach to sentencing is the long-term answer to overcrowding? It combines the need to protect the public from more violent criminals with much longer sentences and the need to reduce the prison population by getting as many people as possible back into the community.

Mr Waddington: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I make it plain that our White Paper was not the beginnings of a policy; it was the culmination of it. In recent years, more and more people have been dealt with by punishment in the community, and that has helped greatly towards the reduction in the prison population over the past two years.

Mr. Terry Lewis: Will the Home Secretary assure the House that the inquiry will examine the efficacy of keeping remand prisoners in establishments such as Strangeways? Does not the effectiveness of the emergency services and the prison staff signal the end of discussions on the privatisation of prisons?

Mr. Waddington: There never has been any question of the privatisation of prisons. On remand prisoners, there is a difficulty and a balance is to be struck. We want remand prisoners to be near their legal advisers and their families, and not too far from the courts before which they must appear. We shall never see the day when all remand prisoners are in establishments miles from city centres where the courts sit.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that many hon. Members think that some irresponsible comments have already been made in this matter, which also affects other prisons? Is it not a fact that warnings are nearly always given when violent men are mewed up in prison? It is nonsense to continue to say that the governor was especially warned—he must always be warned. Is it not also a fact that there are 2,700 fewer prisoners now and that there are 3,000 more prison officers than there were three years ago? It is entirely unhelpful to give the


impression that prisons are overcrowded and understaffed, because that affects the morale of prison officers and people outside, and that irresponsibility should stop.

Mr. Waddington: Over the past 10 years there has been a 50 per cent. increase in the number of prison officers and only an 11 per cent. increase in the number of prisoners. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to make the point that, sometimes in the past few days, people have overlooked the very big increase in the staffing of prisons that has taken place in recent years. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about warnings, but, now that the inquiry has been set up, the best thing is for people who have any information that they think is relevant to give that information to the inquiry.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is a private Members' day. I shall allow questions to continue for another five minutes, and then we must make progress.

Mr. Alan Meale: Bearing in mind the difficulties of this sad incident, the fact that many prisoners have been transferred to other gaols where subsequent incidents have occurred and that other incidents have been happening at other gaols anyway, will the Home Secretary comment, albeit briefly, on the practice of containment? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether, bearing in mind the violence and everything else that has occurred, containment is in the best interests of people who may be left in prison for a considerable time?

Mr. Waddington: That is a matter for decision by governors. It would be rash for politicians to tell governors how best to make such difficult decisions.

Mr. Robert Key: Will my right hon. and learned Friend ask Lord Justice Woolf to look not only at the problem of rule 43 prisoners but at the problem of HIV-positive prisoners and prisoners with AIDS who have their own problems in prison and are not at all the same as those who are under rule 43 conditions, even though they are often segregated?

Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Clearly it is not for me to tell Lord Justice Woolf what to look into. No doubt he will consider all those matters and will look at his terms of reference and then decide how he should approach the task that he has been set.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Are not the public entitled to know why only five prison officers accompanied 300 prisoners to the chapel last Sunday, a matter of 12 hours after a prison officer at Strangeways logged the fact that he believed that there would be violence the following day? Does that not show that inadequate manning inevitably leads to trouble?

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman's figures are wrong. I stated the other day that there were 10 prison officers inside the chapel, and there were also more prison officers outside. In any event, those matters are for Lord Justice Woolf's inquiry. I do not think that it helps when hon. Members propagate various rumours. All those matters can be established in due course by the inquiry.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Although I enormously admire the way in which my right hon. and learned Friend has handled this extremely difficult tragedy, I was slightly disappointed with his reply to the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) about remand prisoners and privatisation. It is essential that remand prisoners, many of whom may be guilty of no crime whatever, are segregated from those who have been convicted. One way forward may be to have privatised prisons in which remand prisoners can be held separately.

Mr. Waddington: There never has been any question of the privatisation of prisons. The matter that was raised by my right hon. Friend the present Foreign Secretary was whether the private sector could play any part in remand centres. That matter is under consideration.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Home Secretary assure the House that the proposed Home Office reorganisation, which was deprecated by a number of prison governors, including the one at Strangeways, and its effect will be taken into account by the inquiry? Will he assure hon. Members that that reorganisation was not a prelude to privatisation of sections of the prison service, as many people thought? Will he, as a matter of urgency, review the proposed reorganisation to make sure that it is halted before any further adverse effects occur?

Mr. Waddington: It is not for me to express a view on that matter now because it goes wide of the statement, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is up to Lord Justice Woolf to look at his terms of reference and decide what matters are relevant and what matters are not relevant.

Mr. David Sumberg: I join hon. Members on both sides of the House in paying tribute to the courage of all those who have worked so hard to bring the matter to a conclusion. It should not be forgotten that they did not allow one prisoner to escape into the general public. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Home Office has plans to redevelop Manchester prison? Is it not important that any decision in the area should take account of the lessons to be learned from the distressing events of the past week?

Mr. Waddington: I said in my statement on Tuesday that, only days before the incident broke out, arrangements had been made for the purchase by the prison service of land adjoining the prison. My hon. Friend is right to congratulate all those involved. He has drawn attention to something that I should perhaps have mentioned earlier: not one prisoner escaped.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Whatever repugnance we may rightly feel for those convicted and gaoled for crimes involving sexual violence and abuse, they nevertheless deserve to be placed in circumstances governed by the highest degree of segregation. In the understandable haste surrounding the transfer of prisoners from Strangeways, was the need for protection of rule 43 prisoners maintained?

Mr. Waddington: Rule 43 prisoners were segregated. The trouble was that access was obtained to the part of the prison in which they were held. How any rule 43 prisoner is dealt with at the receiving establishment is a matter for the governor.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I too thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his wise handling of this tragic matter and for the Government's largest building programme this century for prisons which may bring an end to the disgusting circumstances in which prisoners have often been held hitherto. Does he agree that too many prisons are potential tinder boxes, because they are repositories of violent men, which are contained and made secure only through the bravery of prison officers? Will he make sure that not only the governors and the prison service but prison officers always have easy access to the constant support of his Department, and that their views are listened to?

Mr. Waddington: I would be the first to pay tribute to the bravery of prison officers, as many hon. Members from both sides of the House have done, for the way in which they responded to the emergency. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his remarks about the prison building programme. It is a great tragedy that this incident will set it back.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry that it was not possible to call every hon. Member who wished to speak. I sought to call those who have a direct interest in the matter and those who were not called when the previous statement was made.

Iraq

Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) must divide their time between them—they have 29 minutes each.

Mr. David Winnick: I accept that Britain has diplomatic relations with several dictatorships with deplorable human rights records. I am aware of the criteria by which recognition is given and which successive Governments have followed. There are instances, however, when outrages against British interests or nationals lead to the conclusion that we should break off diplomatic relations in peace time. Hence, at present, Britain does not have relations with the authorities in power in Libya, Iran and Syria. I think that I am right in saying that that has the approval of the whole House.
The Government have told us that, despite recent events in Iraq affecting Britain, they intend to continue diplomatic relations with that country. No doubt the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who will reply to the debate, will reaffirm that position today. Leaving aside the matter of diplomatic relations, the House should take an interest in events in Iraq. That country was the subject of statements and private notice questions recently over the long detention and then execution of Farzad Bazoft. The case turned the spotlight on the nature of the dictatorship in Iraq. Mr. Bazoft was there by invitation of the authorities and was with a group of other journalists. We should remind ourselves that he had previously visited that country, again by invitation, on five occasions. Mr. Bazoft was stateless, but he travelled on British travel documents.
The regime seemed to take a sheer delight in Mr. Bazoft's execution. In Britain, the reaction was one of widespread dismay and anger. As the Minister will probably remind us, two other British citizens—Daphne Parish and Ian Richter—are still being held in Iraq. We all want to see their return to Britain as quickly as possible. No doubt those two cases will be the subject of continuing questions to Foreign Office Ministers.
What about the dictatorship itself? What sort of a country is Iraq? How has it been led in the past 10 or 15 years? Such questions are important and relevant to the United Kingdom and should be taken into account by the Government in their relations with the regime. Many British people believe that the Government's mild reaction to the execution of Mr. Bazoft was not appropriate. The contempt that the regime showed for British protests and representations demonstrated again that when one is dealing with totalitarian regimes, mild protests or appeasement of any kind simply do not work.
As I said yesterday during Foreign Office questions, terrorist dictatorships work on the basis that democracies are unlikely to act tough and will find all kinds of excuses for not doing so. The reaction of totalitarian regimes is simply to show contempt for what they see as weakness. That was the lesson of the 1930s and the continued criticism of the Opposition towards the dealings of the British regime with Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy.


I have referred to Iraq as a terrorist regime. I certainly believe that that is an accurate description. It is one of the most notorious and bloodstained dictatorships in existence. That is saying a great deal when one thinks of the other dictatorships in various parts of the globe. In Iraq there is constant spying on and intimidation of its citizens, mass arrests, prolonged and savage tortures, show trials and large-scale executions, including public hangings. Those are all part of the way in which Saddam Hussein has ruled Iraq in recent years.
One of the worst crimes of the regime, and there have been many, was the use of chemical weapons in March 1987 against Kurds in a town in northern Iraq. Thousands died from the effects of the poison gas used. The regime denied that chemical weapons were used, but does anyone in the House or outside believe a word of what it says? The recent comments of the regime about a possible attack using chemical weapons against Israel give us even more reason to disbelieve it. By any standards, the attack using chemical weapons was a crime against humanity.
All the abuses in Iraq have been well documented in reports by Amnesty International. In 1989 that organisation referred to other crimes carried out by the terrorist regime. It dealt with the hundreds of executions of those considered to be opponents of the Government and army deserters. It said that routine torture and ill-treatment of prisoners continues to occur and that many are tortured to force them to sign confessions or to renounce their political affiliations. It said that political prisoners are reported to have been beaten, whipped, sexually abused, subjected to electric shocks and deprived of food. It also mentioned the cruel and sadistic tortures that have been inflicted on women prisoners. That is all part of the regime ruled over by Saddam Hussein in that unhappy country, as it has been for so many years.
Another report from Amnesty International devoted entirely to the detention of children documents the brutal treatment of young people, many of them very young, held in Iraqi prisons. Some of those children are executed once they have reached 16 or 17. Children in Iraq are frequently arrested and held as hostages in lieu of their parents or other relatives.
Some hon. Members, particularly Conservative Members—I emphasise that they are not present now—may say that what goes on in other countries is not our concern, that we should not worry unduly about that and that we should mind our own business. Twenty-two years ago, I had an Easter Adjournment debate on the military regime in Greece. A year had passed since the colonels had taken over and I protested strongly about the dictatorship and the brutalities occurring there. I quoted then from Amnesty International reports. On that occasion I was sitting on the Government Benches and I did not receive much support, if any, from Conservative Members.

Mr. John Marshall: I place on record my concern, and that of many Conservative Members, that Iraq may, in the near future, have nuclear weapons which could have a destabilising effect on the middle east.

Mr. Winnick: I shall come to that point in a moment.
The House of Commons should always be concerned with brutality and torture in other countries. If we as a House refuse to show such interest, we shall lose one of our

important roles and one of our most honourable traditions. That is my view and I am not likely to change my mind.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the possible manufacture of nuclear weapons by Iraq, and the events of last week at Heathrow airport were a timely reminder of the determination of Iraq's criminal regime to manufacture nuclear weapons. I know that the argument of British domestic policy is that we should have nuclear weapons because other countries have them. I shall not go into that controversy today. No doubt Saddam Hussein would use the same type of argument. But that undoubtedly shows the immense dangers to humanity of nuclear weapons of any sort being in the hands of a criminal regime with a bloodstained record such as I have been describing. I hope that the possible manufacture of nuclear weapons by Iraq will be the subject of much interest not only in Britain and the western world, but among Arab countries, too.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Would not that also be relevant to our attitude towards the protection of the state of Israel, because what happens in Iraq must be of direct concern to the democratically elected members of a state which is at risk?

Mr. Winnick: Yes. I am critical of the policies pursued by Israel, certainly in the occupied territories—the Minister knows my view—but I agree with my hon. Friend.
I strongly urge that the banning of all export high-level technology to Iraq should be given the highest priority and that every effort should be made urgently to seek co-operation on that, certainly from the countries of western Europe, but also, as I pointed out yesterday, from the Soviet Union and other countries of eastern Europe. One of the most significant things about the renewal or the beginning of the democratic process in eastern Europe and, I hope, in the Soviet Union, is that those countries will no longer wish in any way, directly or indirectly, to support terrorists or criminal regimes.
The sanctions that I have just been urging should be applied against Iraq as soon as possible. Trade credits to the regime should also be ended. I know all the arguments about the benefits to Britain of such trade, but the more that we can isolate such a regime the better it will be, not only for our well-being in Britain, but for humanity as a whole.
We also need the support of Arab states in spotlighting the dangers to their countries. That is not directly a matter for the British Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) mentioned Israel, and that is clearly a matter which will deeply concern the Israeli Government. But Arab countries in the region—Muslim countries—will recognise the dangers of Iraq acquiring nuclear weapons and, in particular, the territorial ambitions of Saddam Hussein. I hope that such dangers will be recognised by countries such as Egypt.
When we raise such matters, it is sometimes argued that we are being critical of Muslim countries. It should not be forgotten that the large majority of victims of the regime that I have been describing have been Muslims. In the main, the Kurds are Muslim. One should also remember that Iraq started the Gulf war. Perhaps at that time it was in western interests to see Iran defeated, but it should not be forgotten who started the war. The millions of casualties which resulted from those two ruthless


dictatorships fighting for years were all Muslims. That was a needless and senseless war and I am only too pleased that it has finally come to an end. The leaders of Iraq may welcome a new war to divert attention from domestic problems. I have already referred to the territorial ambitions of Saddam Hussein.
I have chosen this subject because, following recent events, including what happened at Heathrow, it is necessary to spotlight what has been happening. I hope that this subject will continue to interest the House when we return after the recess. I hope that every opportunity will be taken by the Government to pursue the line that I have urged—not appeasement and not a show of weakness, but a recognition of all the dangers involved in the criminal regime in Iraq, to try to isolate it in every way possible and to seek the utmost international co-operation in pursuing that course.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) for giving the House another opportunity to express, as I am sure it will wish to, its horror at the execution of Farzad Bazoft, and I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said about that case. I shall make one or two comments on the wider issues of our relations with countries whose regime we abhor and whose human rights records we know to be dreadful. Both those things, I am sad to say, are true of Iraq at the present time. We have made that clear in recent years.
I am responsible, under my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, for relations with the middle east, Africa, eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. With the wonderful exception of events in eastern Europe, there are —with one or two honourable exceptions—few countries among those for which I am responsible whose human rights record or commitment to democracy would meet the approval of this House. If this country's diplomatic relations, let alone trading relations, were to be dictated as our hearts would like to dictate them, and if we were to maintain relations only with countries of which we approved, our relationships around the world would be few.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North is justified in saying that Iraq is among the nations having the worst record of human rights—although I could put others in that dismal competition.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Does the Minister accept that few other countries have taken action against someone travelling on a British passport, or at least with British travel documents, in the way that Iraq did recently?

Mr. Waldegrave: Mr. Bazoft was not travelling on a British passport, but, like many displaced people, used travel documents issued by the country in which he was staying.
The list of executions that have taken place in the countries for which I am responsible is very long, and there are many competitors—alongside the catalogue of those who have been tortured and wrongly imprisoned.
It is the duty of all countries which are signatories to the United Nations convention, and certainly the duty of this House, to protest whenever possible. When a case comes close to us, such as that of Farzad Bazoft, who was

working for a British employer at the time of his arrest and travelling on British travel documents, it is right that the House should do what it can. My Government made major efforts to save Mr. Bazoft, aligning a huge international protest. Tragically, that effort failed, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Walsall, North acknowledges that Britain did all that it could to save Mr. Bazoft. Those of us working in the Foreign Office were as distressed as anyone by the terrible outcome of that affair.
Farzad Bazoft's confession, which was about the only document put before the court, is a pathetic document, because it clearly tells the truth about a number of rather low-level contacts that Mr. Bazoft had with special branch officers in this country when he was trying—as journalists do—to swap information with the police about Iranian dissidents and about demonstrations in London some years ago. Whether deliberately or in ignorance, that admission was taken by the Iraqis as evidence that Mr. Bazoft was in touch with the British secret services, and so on. The horror is complete because, from what I have read of his confession, Mr. Bazoft told the truth. By telling that truth, which was entirely innocent, he was taken as condemning himself.
As to the remarks of the hon. Member for Walsall, North concerning chemical weapons, at the chemical weaponry conference in Paris last year, Britain was the only country, not only in Europe but the world, to name Iraq as having breached its 1925 obligation. We were in the forefront of protests about that breach and welcomed the commitment given by Iraq at the conference that it would not recur—a commitment that we hope will be honoured.
As the hon. Member for Walsall, North rightly said, we were deeply involved in the desperate attempt to stop the export of nuclear weaponry technology not only to Iraq but to other countries, as was our duty under the non-proliferation treaty and the missile technology control regime. I join the hon. Gentleman in emphasising that one of the most hopeful developments is the new, genuine adherence to those measures by the Soviet Union, which is making it known that, although it is not willing at present to join the missile technology control regime, it will act as though it has done so and in parallel with its requirements. That is a most helpful and hopeful development.
Another hopeful development in the whole area of terrorism is that a number of former safe havens in eastern Europe have gone for ever. The countries that formerly served as safe havens are now taking steps to join those of us who act against terrorists, which is most beneficial.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is it true, as reported in The Independent on Sunday, that the same capacitors as were allegedly brought into the United Kingdom are available in university laboratories in London? Are efforts being made in the United States to monitor the production of the capacitors to ensure that they do not enter the export chain?

Mr. Waldegrave: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is no. The success of our extremely succesful joint investigation with the Americans over several months answers the hon. Gentleman's second question.
I have little argument with the hon. Member for Walsall, North about our horror at many practices of the Iraqi regime and of many others. He asked us to consider taking further steps against them. However, I genuinely


believe that it would be wrong for us to break diplomatic relations with all those countries whose human rights records fall short of what we desire.

Mr. Winnick: I agree.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman concurs. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has pointed out that we broke off relations with a number of countries that took steps against our citizens either from their diplomatic premises in Britain—as in the Libyan or Syrian cases—or in their own country, as in Iran. We maintain diplomatic relations with a range of other countries whose practices, I am sorry to say, we deplore.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has pointed out that if we were to withdraw from Iraq, where there are 2,000 British business men and British prisoners—the hon. Gentleman was right to refer to the cases of Mrs. Parish and Mr. Richter, on whose behalf we continue to work hard—we would leave British citizens without such help as our diplomats can provide. We would be left with a swathe of countries, from the Khyber pass in Afghanistan, across to the Mediterranean and Syria, without any British diplomatic representation. We must avoid that if we can.
The trade argument is one point on which I disagree with the hon. Member for Walsall, North. It suggests that we are granting the countries concerned a privilege by allowing them to buy things from us. However, it is worth remembering when horrible cases arise that we ask our business men to earn this country's living by going to some of the most unappealing places in the world, and by living often in constrained and unpleasant circumstances, to help keep people employed in our country. A Conservative Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, once remarked, "Exporting is fun." I am not sure to what extent that sentiment would be echoed by business men who have to operate in some of the countries that I have mentioned, to win orders to keep their factories running at home.
It is argued that Britain should cut off trade credits. Nothing would please Treasury Ministers more, for they are always against lending money to anyone. However, if British business men are to be sent in to bat against the Germans, Japanese and Italians without even the minimal support of trade credits, one might as well not send them at all. We are not granting Iraq a privilege but are competing against all the industrial countries in earning our living as a trading nation.
There is no question of isolating Iraq. The Arab League unanimously supports Iraq on the Bazoft case. A number of our friends in the Arab world asked for clemency beforehand, but the Arab League afterwards passed a motion supporting Iraq, and a further motion supporting Iraq against the media campaign on nuclear matters which it alleges has subsequently taken place.
Therefore, I fear that it is being hopeful to have the idea that cutting off British trade credits and trying to prevent British business men from going to that market—we could legally do it—would isolate Iraq. That could create satisfaction among our industrial competitors and it would lose us jobs and orders in Britain. It would have no other effect.
Like the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), I would have much preferred to stand at the Dispatch Box in the times of Lord Palmerston or perhaps even of Mr. Anthony Eden—although I doubt whether the hon. Lady would have supported his exercise of power in the middle east. However, those days are not with us now and it is no good pretending that they are.

Mr. Winnick: Although I was around at the time, but not in this place, no one could have been more opposed to that criminal Suez adventure than I was.
As I tried to emphasise in my remarks, is there not a need for co-ordinated action, or is the Minister of State telling us that other democracies are so short-sighted that they do not recognise that to take advantage of any actions we take would not be in their interests?

Mr. Waldegrave: I pay tribute to the European Community, which protested strongly, and to those countries in the Arab world which asked for clemency on our behalf—as a good many did, including King Hussein.
If the hon. Member for Walsall, North thinks that it is possible to arrange a trade boycott of Iraq because of these events, he is whistling in the wind. It is completely impossible. I fear that those are the facts. We have to live with them and to recognise the limits of our power.
However, that does not mean that we should not protest—we should. It does not mean that we should not conduct relations with a country that behaves in such a way, although it will obviously be in a different style than with those countries with which we are friendly.

Mrs. Dunwoody: rose—

Mr. Waldegrave: I have only one more minute.
It is not sensible to pretend to our people that we have powers that we do not have. Nor is it sensible to pretend that we have the luxury of living as a self-contained island that does not have to trade with, potentially, hundreds of regimes round the world which do not meet the human rights standards that we seek to defend in the House. That is the truth of the matter.
The tensions and dangers in the middle east ultimately derive from the unsolved problems of the region. If the Iran-Iraq war was not still suspended, those countries would not be seeking to arm themselves with terrible weapons. If the Arab-Israel dispute was following the course of a peace process—which the hon. Member for Walsall, North and I would both like—tensions would diminish.
As diplomats, that is where we should put our primary effort—to trying to remove the underlying conditions that give comfort to and produce those dreadful regimes, because it is the tensions within that region that help the maintenance and growth of the dictatorial regimes about which the hon. Gentleman so rightly protests. That is where our principal effort should be directed and that is where the Government's diplomatic efforts are still directed in the Iran-Iraq and Arab-Israel conflicts. If we can help to get those on their way to a solution, we shall have done something, in the longer term, to dissolve the conditions that produce the regimes against which we have to protest all too often.

Baltic States

Mr. David Atkinson: I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss the current situation in the Baltic states at such a timely moment.
I am sure that the House, if not the entire free world, including or course central and most of eastern Europe, have been watching developments from Lithuania with bated breath; with sympathy for the demands that its Parliament has made for independence, so recently and so clearly endorsed by the elections in February; with understanding for its declaration of independence and President Landsbergis's appeal for western recognition and support; with admiration at the cool and courageous way in which he and his colleagues are responding to the psychological pressure that is increasingly being applied by Moscow; with alarm at the intervention of the Red Army and its occupation of public buildings and of the free press, the expulsion of foreign correspondents and the closure of the border with Poland; with fear that the situation will lead to a classic confrontation in the tradition of the Breznev doctrine, which the world had understood had been abandoned; and with distress at the consequences of such an intervention for the remarkable progress that has been made to end the cold war and to improve east-west relations, and in arms control, and for President Gorbachev himself and his progress towards political and economic reform, which we fully support—provided, of course, that he means what he says.
That is where the matter rests at the moment, perhaps awaiting a further turn of the screw to encourage negotiations on the Kremlin's terms.
have no doubt that all that was discussed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister with President Gorbachev during their telephone conversation last week and is being discussed by Mr. Baker and Mr. Shevardnadze in Washington and that the limits beyond which it is unacceptable for both sides to go are being clearly spelled out.
To date, the line that western Governments have taken in public, including Her Majesty's Government, has been that the future of the Baltic states is an internal matter for the Soviet Union and the republics concerned. That is a lie which I cannot accept any more, and I do not believe that the House will accept it either.
As I said to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Tuesday, the secret protocol of 1939 makes the Baltic states a special case. Their problem is not just a Soviet problem; it is a European one. Like German unification, it is the legacy of the last war, which can and should be resolved only by the four powers in a European context within the forums that already exist for the resolution of such matters, peacefully, securely and in a spirit of co-operation. That is what the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe—the Helsinki process—is all about. That is the principal argument of my debate today, and I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, will respond to it.
Perhaps at this point it would be helpful for us to recall the events that led to the occupation and annexation of tilt Baltic states into the Soviet Union in 1939 and 1940. In 1918, the Baltic states gained independence of the Russian

empire amid that turbulent period which saw the German advance, following the withdrawal of the Bolshevik forces, turn into a retreat in November.
The Russian civil war that followed became a war of independence for the Baltic peoples. Eventually, in 1920, peace treaties were signed with the Soviet Union which unreservedly recognised the independence of the new republics from Russia, which renounced all former rights of sovereignty "voluntarily and forever".
In 1921, the League of Nations recognised all three states to which de jure recognition had been extended by most countries and they became member states of the league. Further independently negotiated treaties with the Soviet Union confirmed the legitimacy of the new states.
Liberal democratic constitutions were adopted. Minority rights were guaranteed by law, and no one group exercised significant political influence. Tragically, proportional representation led to a plethora of small parties, which in turn led to cabinet instability, parliamentary paralysis and a series of largely pre-emptive coups d'etat and the setting-up of largely authoritarian regimes.
With the resurgence of Germany, the Soviet Union became concerned about its security in the event of German aggression against the Baltic states, and saw an opportunity for territorial expansion. On 23 August 1939, Ribbentrop and Molotov agreed a treaty of nonaggression. That was the public document published at the time. On the same day, however, a secret additional protocol concerning their respective spheres of influence in Poland and the Baltic area was signed. That was amended by a further secret protocol on 28 September transferring Lithuania to the Soviet sphere.
Following the German invasion of Poland, all three states were forced to conclude military alliances with the Soviet Union. All three treaties assured the Baltic Governments that their sovereignty would be fully respected, but it was not long before Soviet troops entered the Baltic states. They were incorporated into the Soviet Union behind a facade of ligitimacy.
When the Soviets returned in 1944, following the German occupation, there was a large-scale flight to the west which was not surprising. They knew what to expect: enforced collectivisation, industrialisation and integration into the Soviet economy, and persecution of the church and of all nationalist consciousness. Six hundred thousand people were deported to Siberia; hundreds of thousands of people were killed in Soviet prison camps. The process of Russification, through the immigration of Russian peoples, was designed to swamp the Baltic majority.
During the 40 years of apparent acquiescènce to the Soviet occupation that followed, it is clear that Baltic nationalism was barely affected. At every level of society, people used their official positions to preserve national identity and integrity. However, it is only during the past two years that there have been more changes in the Baltic states than at any time since Stalin—in response to unprecedented popular demands, themselves in response to glasnost and perestroika, that have led so dramatically to today's circumstances. The establishment of the popular fronts in Latvia and Estonia and Sajudis in Lithuania provided the impetus and the channel for national self-assertion, the adoption of national flags and symbols and the more recent demands for independence and a democratic parliamentary system.
Not far behind have been the Communist parties of all three states which, either through conviction or for


survival, declared their own independence from the Communist party of the Soviet Union in support of national self-determination. Perhaps one of the most impressive and moving peaceful demonstrations in history of solidarity between peoples against an occupying power took place on 23 August 1989 to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, when more than 1 million people linked hands in a human chain across all three republics.
In its initial response to such clear demonstrations of nationalism, Moscow postponed environmentally sensitive projects, restored Vilnius cathedral to the Roman Catholic Church, granted economic sovereignty and decentralisation and proposed the prospect of limited sovereignty. In addition, the Yakovlev commission was established to inquire into the status of the secret protocol. Throughout last year, and into this, the Parliaments of all three states seemed to outdo each other in declaring ever-more daring acts of defiance in pursuit of independence, with Lithuania making the running in declaring Soviet annexation invalid and adopting laws to pave the way for a referendum on independence and ending the party's leading role.
Given the fact that such unprecedented demands for nationalism were being emulated elsewhere in the Soviet Union, it became clear that it could not be allowed to continue unchecked without undermining President Gorbachev's position and authority. In December, he appealed to Lithuania to reject the idea of an independent state outside the Soviet Union, although in January, during his visit to Lithuania, he promised legislation to permit an orderly secession. The Yakovlev commission declared the secret protocol to the contrary to international law but claimed that that did not invalidate the incorporation of the Baltic republics into the USSR in 1940.
In February this year, the terms of such secession became clearer, including the requirement that three quarters of the population must participate in a referendum, which would be followed by a transitional period of five years—endorsed this week by the Soviet Parliament. If that was designed to discourage demands for immediate independence, it has failed. In last month's elections to the Lithuanian supreme soviet, Sajudis obtained 97 seats out of 141 and Gallup reported 63 per cent. in favour of full independence. Its supreme council has adoped a declaration of sovereignty and a resolution reinstating the constitution of 1938.
More recent elections in Latvia and Estonia have also produced majorities for independence candidates, despite the influx of Russian troops to influence the results with their votes. In response, the USSR's Congress of People's Deputies, which I attended last month, appointed a commission to review the position, since when the Government have refused to accept the Lithuanian declaration of independence and have sent Soviet troops to occupy party buildings in Vilnius and to arrest deserters.
As the whole world knows, President Landsbergis has refused to withdraw the declaration and has appealed for international recognition and support. It is an appeal reminiscent of Dubcek's in 1968 and of Nagy's in 1956. We

must all hope and work for a solution that does not end in similar tragedies. President Gorbachev, of course, is cleverer than that.
Surely the events of the past two years have proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the Baltic peoples have demonstrated, demanded and voted for nothing less than a return to independence. There is even evidence that their ethnic Russian populations would opt for the prospect of the greater prosperity that would result from being in control of their own destiny. Moreover, we know from their previous independence that they are capable of economic self-sufficiency and would—like Finland, whose economy was much weaker after the war—have become fully integrated into the western economy by now. Indeed, they argue that it is in the Soviet Union's interests for independent Baltic states to act, as Finland is now, as entrepots for trade and technology with the west.
It seems to me that the way is now open for Her Majesty's Government to take initiatives to resolve the future of the Baltic states in a way that should not threaten President Gorbachev's position. First, let us confirm that the secret protocol of 1939 and its implementation in 1940 was a clear breach of international law which determines the Baltic states as a special case. Secondly, it is no longer good enough to regard this matter as one for the Soviet Union as the de facto power and as one for negotiation between the parties concerned. The fact that we withhold de jure recognition of Soviet annexation implies that we will recognise, de facto, a return to independence. If Soviet occupation remains illegal, as it does, current events mean that we can no longer remain silent as to what we would regard as legal. To do so would encourage Moscow to intensify its intimidation.
Does not article 12 of the Soviet constitution as it stands allow for secession? Does not article 1 of both the international covenant on civil and political rights and the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights proclaim the right of peoples to self-determination? Does not principle 8 of the Helsinki Final Act guarantee the right of people to self-determination and also their wish, in full freedom, to determine when and as they wish their internal and external status, with the Act itself providing for change in frontiers by peaceful means and agreement?
As they do, do not these international obligations, entered into by the Soviet Union, by us and by all other members of our European community, now require us to seek a solution to the Baltic problem in the wider framework of east-west relations and within that common European home to which President Gorbachev gives credence, which is the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe process?
Let us now consult our council of Europe and CSCE colleagues to agree to raise the future of the Baltic states at the forthcoming summit under the Helsinki process, which is already planned to take account of the irreversible events in central and eastern Europe, including, in particular, the forthcoming unification of Germany and the signing of a peace treaty? To ignore the consequences of the secret protocol in seeking to resolve, once and for all, the consequences of the last war, would be a lie.
I accept that these consequences go beyond the Baltic states. They apply to the western Ukraine and Moldavia too, but we should not be put off by that. Any solution must be a freely negotiated one, but it must be on Europe's terms, not those of the Soviet Union. Since no referendum


was held in 1940 to determine the Baltic peoples' wish to nullify their independence, we certainly should not support any suggestion of a referendum to put right what international law has found to be illegal. The recent elections have confirmed the people's choice. As President Gorbachev said to the United Nations in December 1988:
Freedom of choice is a universal principle which allows no exceptions.
The situation in the Baltic states today determines that these questions must be resolved, and resolved soon. The CSCE is the means. The forthcoming summit is the opportunity. Her Majesty's Government can be the initiator. I look forward to my right hon. Friend's response.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): It give me genuine pleasure to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), who has raised an extremely topical subject, and I congratulate him on his success in being able to introduce the debate. I shall comment on his extremely comprehensive and learned speech. My officials could find no fault with the history that he set out. I share with the House the fact that my hon. Friend did me the courtesy of showing me a copy of his speech in advance.
My principal points are in agreement with my hon. Friend. First, he is right to recognise that the progress that has already been made in the Baltic states must owe a great deal to perestroika and glasnost and to the much more liberal policy followed by Mr. Gorbachev and his colleagues in recent years. The response of previous Soviet regimes, let alone Stalin, was very different.
It is worth recognising that the fact that the Baltic people are now, we hope, on the way to recovering their legal rights of independence is another of the beneficial side effects of the general improvement and loosening up in the Soviet Union. That gives us and the Soviet Union the responsibility of doing nothing as any action would give such succour to the enemies of the process of liberalisation in the Soviet Union—and there are many of them—as to bring that process to an end. That is the tightrope which the Baltic peoples—with skill and restraint so far—are walking.
Secondly, I agree with my hon. Friend that the danger is extremely close to the surface. It is easy to imagine incidents as a result of provocation or accident which could lead to disaster. The mature behaviour of people in Lithuania—of whom we have seen most in our newspapers and electronic media—in Estonia and in Latvia deserves tribute.
My hon. Friend gave an interesting account of the passage of history, making passing reference to the usual disasters that follow from proportional representation. He made a rather pregnant remark when he reminded us of the disasters in Hungary and Czechoslovakia in 1956 and 1968. Everyone of our generation remembers the poignant way in which the radio stations said, "Remember us," when they were closed down. That also reminds us of our responsibility.
The history books now show that many young people in 1956 and 1968 believed that in some impossible way the west would physically come to their rescue. Right until the end they were asking where were the American marines, the British and the French.
We should do nothing in any physical sense—and I am sure that the passage of history has made the Baltic people much more aware of the truth—to raise any expectations that we cannot meet. I am not saying that we should not bring other pressures to bear and enter into the diplomatic process, but it is worth putting it clearly on record that the questions and propositions at the end of my hon. Friend's speech when he talked of the CSCE mechanisms and discussions and the process leading to independence. That is the path we must follow.
However, I must correct my hon. Friend on one point. Britain does not regard the matter as an internal one for the Soviet Union. Our position, like that of most of the principal western countries, is that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was illegal and that there has never been a legal incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union. Therefore, it is not pari passu with events in other parts of the Soviet Union; it is important to make that distinction. That is one of the elements that may lead to a solution. Clearly there must be many in the Soviet Union who fear any movement on the Baltic states as leading to a precedent that would make things extremely difficult for the Soviet Union.
We do not believe that that issue has to be addressed in relation to the Baltic states. They already have a ring around them, given the fact that we and the Soviet Union now believe that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was illegal. There is a ring of legality and separateness around the Baltic states, and it is worth drawing attention to that.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister put that clearly on record in the House on 27 March when she said:
we have never recognised the annexation
of the Baltic states
to the Soviet Union as being legal."—[Official Report, 27 March 1990; Vol. 170, c. 205.]
I should like to raise a number of points about what will happen next and what we should be seeking to do, which was how my hon. Friend finished his excellent speech. We have taken a number of steps to make it clear that, although we have been urging restraint on the people of the Baltic states and congratulating them on their exercise of that restraint, we should be urging the same restraint on the Soviet Union. We made that clear at the Dispatch Box yesterday. The European Community has twice made it clear in authoritative statements that we do not approve of the threats that have been made. That is not the way to solve the problem.
There has been sabre rattling—with modern technological means rather than with sabres—and, in a repeated statement by the Twelve issued yesterday, we have all deplored that. The Twelve stated that the situation remains difficult and that we are concerned about the potentially serious consequences which an aggravation of the situation might have on the improved climate prevailing in Europe and that the Twelve expressed the hope that a purposeful dialogue between Vilnius and Moscow—they were talking about Lithuania—will commence in the very near future. They call for good will on both sides and the maximum restraint on all sides so as not to aggravate an already delicate situation. Therefore, the message goes very clearly to both sides.

Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: Does the Minister agree that it is important for the Twelve, as part of their common foreign policy process, to take that a little further and to take some firm initiatives directly with Moscow to facilitate those negotiations?

Mr. Waldegrave: That leads me to what steps Britain can take. There will be continuous discussions with our European partners and at the recent General Affairs Council meeting and other informal meetings it has been, and will continue to be, near the top of the agenda. We now have a series of high-level contacts starting with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary going to Moscow on Monday, followed not long after by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister talked to Mr. Gorbachev at length on the telephone in the spirit in which I am now addressing the House. The Secretary of State had a meeting with the Soviet ambassador in London on 28 March. We shall be pressing for dialogue and discussion, and a peaceful solution to the problem.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East rightly pointed out, everyone seems agreed about the long-term goal. Mr. Gorbachev has implied that he does not rule out independence; what concerns him is the legality of the process, and who are we to argue against legal processes? Nevertheless, we must be careful. I suspect that the Lithuanians would not fear any test of genuine opinion in their country. What worries us are the provisions in the new secession law agreed yesterday and published under article 72 of the Soviet constitution.
We can argue with some of the provisions concerning tests of opinion, but at least they are genuinely aimed at finding out what opinions are held in the Baltic states. The requirement for a two-thirds majority in the Congress of People's Deputies, however, is a different kind of hurdle, as it effectively gives two or three of the biggest republics a veto on secession, whatever the majority opinion in the Soviet Union—let alone that in the Baltic states, whose right to independence should be guaranteed by the legal background.
We shall discuss that problem with the Soviet leadership. Nothing could be worse than the development in the Baltic states of the idea that they will be tricked into a cul de sac; it would be difficult to control the resulting frustration, and that would lead to dangers.
We should not concern ourselves too much with tests of opinion, or with the length of the transitional period. I suspect that we know what the opinion is, and a transitional period of some years may be necessary in any event to disentangle the economy. We must, however, try to ensure that an impossible hurdle is not placed before the people of the Baltic states in the guise of legality, thus vitiating the welcome guarantee from Mr. Gorbachev and Mr. Gerasimov that independence—legally secured—is on the cards. That means concentrating on discussion and representation: we must not pre-empt the good will that can surely be engendered by the willingness to talk that the Soviets have expressed over the past few days.
A disaster is easily possible. The Government urge restraint on the Soviet Union, and also on the people of the Baltic states. What we want is a dialogue about how they are to achieve their legal right to independence.

Rail Services (North-West)

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I have already pursued all the points that I wish to make with the Minister and with British Rail. Let me make it clear at the outset that I am not criticising or attacking British Rail. I do, however, criticise some aspects of Government policy: in my view, the Government fail to recognise the importance of public investment in the railway system—and, indeed, in public transport generally. There is a much better case for subsidising rail and bus services than they believe.
What I have to say is relevant not only to transport but to energy. Investment in public transport should commend itself to a Government who claim to be interested in the environment, as it is one of the best ways of dealing with some of our environmental problems.
Let me deal first with rail connections with the Channel tunnel, and services to the north-west as a whole. The service on the west coast line, which was the first long-distance rail network in the country to be electrified, does not remotely match that on the east coast. Prior to electrification, the service from London to York took two hours, whereas the best service journey from London to Preston takes about two hours 40 minutes. I accept that that is partly because junctions and curves restrict speed, but investment is needed to achieve the standard of service that the north-west deserves.
The north-west deserves not second best but the best. It has a large population and is a major manufacturing region. The Minister should take account of the important fact that since 1979 jobs in manufacturing in the north-west have declined by 30 per cent. Investment and output are also down by more than 30 per cent. in real terms. One of the reasons for that is that the north-west does not have the road and rail communications necessary to encourage investment.
The Channel tunnel offers British Rail one of the best opportunities for investment and improvement in services that it has had this century. However, it is restrained by section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987, which restricts public investment in international services using the Channel tunnel. The Government should review that section.
There is a case for a link for passengers and freight that bypasses west London to the west coast main line and the Channel tunnel. The proposed links with Euston and King's Cross are second best and are not an acceptable solution.
Lancashire county council is concerned about those issues. In a letter dated 12 March, Brian Hill, its chief executive, said:
The passenger proposals underestimate the likely demand for Channel Tunnel services and, as a consequence, fail to provide the North West, and Lancashire in particular, with the level of service which is justified, and the freight proposals fail to acknowledge existing freight terminal facilities in the County and ignore the County Council's call for a freight depot in central Lancashire, and do not provide sufficient details about the services which will be provided when the Channel Tunnel opens.
That letter refers to British Rail's proposals under section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act, which it had to publish last year. The county council's views are right, and I hope that the Government will have second thoughts about those important proposals.
The Channel tunnel offers us an opportunity to get freight off the roads and on to the railways. Even if rail freight were to increase by 50 per cent., road freight would decrease by only 5 per cent. The current growth in road freight is 5 per cent., so it will be extremely difficult even to stand still.
All people who use roads know that, even if the Government meet the proposed investment in the roads programme, there will still be major traffic problems well into the next century unless we get some of the long-distance freight back on the railways. If the north-west is to have jobs and a future as a manufacturing region, which is so important to the future of this nation, we need rail investment to encourage people to use railways.
I and many colleagues have long campaigned for the link to Manchester airport. In a letter dated 17 August, Greater Manchester passenger transport authority confirms that the former Secretary of State indicated that it should be operational by 1993. I hope that that timetable is adhered to and that the rail link is operating by that date. I hope that the Minister will agree that, although the link improves the service from the north side of Manchester airport to the airport, we need to consider whether there should be rail access from the south side of Manchester airport for people who use that great international airport.
It would be wrong for me not to welcome some of the improvements made by British Rail to local services in the north-west in recent years. The improvements to some stations in Lancashire, in co-operation with Lancashire county council, are most welcome, although only last week, while travelling on the line, I saw that there had been damage to some of the new panels of the shelters. The shelters cost a considerable sum and it is a matter of great regret to me, to Lancashire county council, to British Rail and, I am sure, to the Minister that money has been wasted in that way.
Another example of a change for the better is the Windsor link, which has improved services between the north and south of Manchester. The Roses line, which runs from Preston, through Bradford and on to Leeds, was opened only about six years ago. Next month, it will provide an hourly service, which shows the potential for development of that line.
There is a case for electrification of some of the services within the region. It is ludicrous that Blackpool, one of the major tourist resorts of this country, does not have an electrified service. The line from Preston to Manchester should also be electrified, and there is a strong case for electrification of the Roses line. There is tremendous potential in linking east and west, and there could be an electrified service from Blackpool via Preston, Burnley and Bradford to Leeds. The Minister should consider that seriously, If that scheme were carried out, it would be stupid not to include the electrification of the east Lancashire line to Colne.
Another matter of concern to north-east Lancashire, part of which I represent, and especially to Burnley and Pendle, has been the service to Manchester. At present, one has to go to Blackburn and change for a train to Manchester, which takes a considerable time and is not a satisfactory solution. A link could be provided by going through Yorkshire, which would not involve great new investment in line, but only a small spur. That would give us a more direct and speedy service which would attract

people. At present, few people from Burnley, Nelson or Colne use the rail service to Manchester because it is too slow and inefficient. Electrification of those services would bring about considerable improvement and benefits, and is worthy of consideration.
I know that the Minister will say that he and the Secretary of State are prepared to consider any case for electrification from British Rail if it can meet the Government's criteria and if it can justify it to the Government. The purpose of this debate is to say to the Minister that the Government's criteria are not satisfactory and that Government policy should change to enable British Rail to consider the electrification and development of services in a more positive light under new Government guidelines.
The removal of staff from stations is another important matter. I have here a letter from Sir Bob Reid, the chairman of British Rail, dated 26 February. He says that, at Burnley Central station,
a single member of staff can encompass ticket issuing as part of his duties and a permanent booking clerk's position will no longer be a feature of Burnley Central.
That is not acceptable to me, to Burnley borough council or to those who use the station. We want staffing levels not only to be maintained but to be improved. When we do away with staff, whether on buses or on railway stations, we discourage elderly people, women and those who fear vandalism and violence from using the services. We must recognise that it can be short-sighted to save on staff wages, because the cost of the increase in damage and vandalism that results from destaffing, and the fact that it discourages passengers, can lead to a net deficit.
Preston station is a major interCity station, and a number of local Lancashire services also run from it. Lancashire county council and British Rail have done much work to improve the station. Incidentally, they are also to improve some aspects of Burnley Central station, where the improved access on one level will be a welcome development for disabled people. At Preston station, however, there remains a great problem for disabled people who need to use platforms 1 and 2 because the only access is by means of very difficult stairs. In a letter dated
3 April, Brian Hill, of Lancashire county council, wrote:
I would, however, point out that, despite improvements to other parts of the Station, British Rail has failed to come up with a solution for improving access to platforms 1 and 2 for passengers with a mobility handicap. These are the main platforms for British Rail's provincial services at Preston.
We are seeing the end of an era during which the railways declined. In the past few years, there has been a move in a different direction. If the Government rethink their policy and accept that public investment in public transport—in particular, in the railway system, locally, nationally and internationally—they will improve transport and will bring environmental advantages that will certainly be welcome in the north-west.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): I have great pleasure in responding to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and I congratulate him on having secured the opportunity to talk about rail services in the north-west, which is an important subject. I enjoyed his speech greatly. He took us rattling around the north-west and covered a lot of ground.
However, I found a number of contradictions in what the hon. Gentleman said. He began with an attack on the


Government for their lack of investment and then, with a generosity that is typical of him, paid tribute to the improvements made to stations, services and rolling stock in the north-west. He is absolutely right about that: there have been many improvements and the Government's investment programme has been substantial. The hon. Gentleman and I are not as far apart as he may think. I certainly echo the sentiments with which he ended his speech. I, too, believe that there is considerable scope for the revival of the railways in Britain—not least in the north-west.
At one point, the hon. Gentleman set about predicting what I might say in my speech, and he was accurate in that, too. I shall indeed be talking about the investment that has taken place. Investment in the railways is now at its highest level for 25 years—since the conversion from steam to diesel. We are looking at an investment in British Rail of £3·7 billion over the next three years. Investment in public transport over the next three years will be about the same as central Government investment in roads. I recognise the environmental advantages of investment in public transport, although where we have slow-moving traffic on congested roads, investment in roads can also bring environmental benefits, and we have a balance in Government policy between public transport and roads.

Mr. Pike: I in no way oppose investment in motorways. I am fighting for the extension of motorways in my own area, so I do not dispute the Minister's point.

Mr. Portillo: That is marvellous. We are even closer together than I supposed; we share our balanced policy.
The hon. Gentleman was generous enough to mention some of the new services available in the north-west. The Windsor link became fully operational last year. It is now possible for through journeys to be made, for example, between Bolton, Blackpool and Stockport, without the need to transfer between Victoria and Piccadilly stations. Manchester Piccadilly station has benefited from a successful remodelling and resignalling scheme to improve the approaches to the station.
Manchester airport will have a direct rail link which is due to be operational in the financial year 1992–93. I am happy to confirm that that is my information to the hon. Member for Burnley. That link will provide direct services from such places as Leeds and Hull as well as from Manchester. I know that the hon. Gentleman is looking for access from the south as well. The frontier always moves on when the Government do what they are asked to do. However, I know that he welcomes the decision on that link.
British Rail is also considering other cases for electrification around the north-west, including Hooton to Chester and Blackpool to Manchester. The hon. Member for Burnley was concerned that there were no electrified services to Blackpool. The north-west is also benefiting from investment in modern diesel rolling stock. Pacer, sprinters and super sprinters are in service in that area and they will be joined in due course by the new class 158 express vehicles which will offer inter-city levels of comfort, air conditioning and 90 mph running.
By 1993–94, the whole of British Rail's provincial sector fleet will be either electric multiple units or the new generation diesels, apart from some stock kept on hand for

special requirements such as football special excursions. To achieve that, more than £ 400 million has been invested in the provincial sector rolling stock over the past few years and a further £340 million is planned over the next three years. That is a story of Government support for British Rail investment, and investment is the keystone to the strategy in the provincial sector.
New investment means greater reliability, lower maintenance and running costs, an enhanced quality of service and an opportunity to increase the receipts and revenue from the passengers attracted on to the services. Reduced costs and increased revenue mean that services can be maintained with a reduced call on the taxpayer in the way of subsidy. However, I recognise that large subsidies will continue to be needed for the provincial services for the foreseeable future. Indeed, even at the end of British Rail's current corporate plan in 1992–93, we are looking at public sector subsidy of £300 million to the provincial sector.
However, I recognise that some services in the north-west are not nearly as good as they should be, not least because the class 158 express units have been late in delivery. Therefore, some services have not been as good as they should have been because the life-expired diesels running on some routes have been breaking down. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman's constituents, among others, have probably suffered as a result of that.
None the less, it is worth noting that currently revenue is 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. above the corresponding period in the previous year. There has been an increase of about 11 per cent. in Manchester PTE, and it appears that there has been considerable growth, mainly in off-peak periods. The conclusion that I draw from that is that services are at least attractive enough to bring in new customers. Otherwise, people would be voting with their feet.
As we are considering rail services in the north-west, I am proud of the fact that the Government have now approved the grant to be made to the Manchester Metrolink scheme. That £110 million scheme will provide a new rail-based public transport system within the Manchester area. It will offer services between Altrincham and Bury and will run on on-street track linking Manchester's two main railway stations. That will be an innovatory public transport system, and I am pleased that it will be designed, built and operated in the private sector but with a large subsidy from the public sector.
Moving a little outside the area to which the hon. Member for Burnley referred, we have issued credit approvals that will allow the Merseyside PTE to modernise the signalling and information systems on the Merseyrail network. The total cost of about £24 million will be staged over four years. British Rail will be able to cut running costs, and passengers will benefit from more reliable services and information.
Following the King's Cross fire, we have also given priority to a programme of works, costing initially about £14 million, to update the underground parts of Merseyrail for the better protection of passengers, staff, infrastructure and equipment. Credit approvals have been issued, and also, exceptionally, capital grant of £376,000.
The hon. Gentleman referred to inter-city services. He talked about the service on the west coast main line. As he knows, the fastest journey time to Manchester is just under two and a half hours, to Liverpool just over two and a half hours, and to Carlisle about four hours. From May, most


services from London to the north-west will be operated with trains that are capable of running at 110 mph, and there will be an hourly service between London and Liverpool. The line will benefit over the next year from additional rolling stock and extra trains released by the electrification of the east coast main line.
The hon. Gentleman made an interesting point when he said that the east coast main line already provides higher speeds than the west coast main line. He is right, but the crucial factor in determining the speed of the line is not so much whether it is electrified, as the layout, the straightness of the tracks and the number of flat junctions that trains encounter. The Government are looking for good economic cases that show that electrification justifies itself. There is often a misunderstanding, which is not shared by the hon. Gentleman, that electrification is the key to speed. Electrification may be the key to more reliable services and lower operating costs, and it is on that basis that it tends to justify itself.
The hon. Gentleman referred also to Channel tunnel services. Section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 does not prevent public investment in Channel tunnel rail services. It prevents the Government from subsidising that investment. In other words, it must be an investment that justifies itself with a commercial rate of return.
The hon. Gentleman referred to section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act which sets out British Rail's current views of commercially viable services through the tunnel. As he knows, BR's proposals were based on extensive regional consultation prior to drawing up the plan. For passenger services it is important to recognise that people from places with fast, frequent inter-city services to London will find it convenient to change to inter-capital trains, so BR plans comparatively few daytime trains from the regions.
Notwithstanding that, BR plans a daily service to Paris each morning from Manchester, calling at Stockport and Crewe, where there will be connections with Liverpool services, and a return service each evening with a similar daily service to Brussels. There will also be an overnight service calling at Carlisle, Lancaster, Preston and Crewe.
On the freight side, British Rail recognises that about 70 per cent. of traffic will pass beyond London to the regions. It is anxious to compete in that important market, but clearly it can run only commercially viable services. It is planning a regional freight terminal for the north-west, but it has not yet decided on the site. I understand, though,

that British Rail hopes to announce the locations of the terminals during this year. A train operating centre is also planned at Crewe.
Although I recognise the hon. Gentleman's impatience for decisions to be made, there are three years to go. Decisions are being taken in a timely way. Certainly British Rail's section 40 plan will be kept under review and it will be the subject of further consultation. BR would certainly welcome information from the hon. Gentleman's local businesses and other concerns that would enable it accurately to assess the developing demand for international services.
The hon. Gentleman was concerned also about some particular points. I share his ambition that Preston station should be made ever more accessible to disabled people. I very much hope that a way can be found to achieve that.
I was pleased that the hon. Gentleman welcomed the change from the two-tiered structure of Burnley station to a single-level facility. All facilities will be merged at platform level. That will enable British Rail to reduce the number of staff required, but no exact decisions have yet been taken on the details of that. British Rail has made it clear that it intends to maintain the opening hours of the booking office to at least the present level.
I also hope that the refurbishment of Burnley station can proceed in a timely way. There has been a joint operation between Lancashire county council, which has provided some of the finance, and British Rail, which has provided the bulk of it. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has welcomed some of the results. I share his disappointment that vandals have been at work to destroy some of the good work that has been done. British Rail has had to defer some of the work that it hoped to do but, providing that Lancashire county council can come up with its part of the finance in the coming year, I understand that British Rail will be able to improve Burnley Central station and one other station. Despite the disappointing news that the programme of refurbishment will move more slowly than we would have hoped, it seems that there is a good chance that Burnley station and one other will benefit from the improvement programme in the coming year.
It has been a great pleasure to debate these matters with the hon. Gentleman. The review that I have given shows that a great deal of work is being done in the north-west area to improve services and stations. That is possible only under a Government who are committed to public transport and are prepared to see the railways invest massively for the future.

Rutland Water

1 pm

Mr. Michael Latham: Rutland water in my constituency is the largest man-made lake in Europe. It is a reservoir which provides the water supply of 450,000 people. It provides recreation and enjoyment for many walkers, cyclists, horse riders, sailors, fishermen and wind surfers and is an internationally famous bird sanctuary and nature reserve. It provides employment and a living to several small businesses and is a major amenity for the east midlands as a whole.
On 7 September last, Anglian Water announced an immediate ban on sailing and warned people to keep away from the water's edge and especially to keep animals away. The reason for the ban was the weird blue-green algae which had been building up progressively on the surface of the water and at the water's edge over the previous few weeks.
I had only just returned from holiday that day, but the following morning, 8 September, I went to Rutland water with the district manager of Anglian Water, Mr. John Green. At that time fishing was continuing, but by the afternoon of that day it had been banned. A major competition scheduled for that weekend was cancelled. The closure remained in force until 18 October and resulted in great financial hardship for the small businesses and clubs which depend on the water. As far as I am aware, they have not been compensated in any way.
The closure of the reservoir was sparked off by the death of 23 lambs and at least 15 dogs. It is worth examining the chronology of the death of the lambs owned by my constituent, Mr. Renner, at Normanton Lodge farm. The first eight deaths occurred on 21 August. Mr. Renner collected a sample of algae which was then very visible and took it with two dead lambs to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food veterinary centre in Lincoln. All the lambs that died had blue-green algae on them. There were further deaths over the weekend of 26 to 28 August and on 4, 5 and 6 September.
The death of the dogs was also spread over several days. Some vets originally thought that they had eaten the rat poison warfarin because the horrible symptoms were similar to those which occur with such poisoning. There have been persistent local rumours since that that remains the cause. As recently as last month, a local councillor passed to me an allegation that someone had seen warfarin on the ground round the edge of the water. I have asked the water company about that allegation, but it was specifically denied in a telephone call to me last Friday by the managing director, Mr. John Simpson.
On 8 September, the day after the closure, the Leicester Mercury reported the affair. It quoted a spokeswoman for Anglian Water as saying that the public water supplies were not affected by the algae. She added:
The treatment process deals with the blue-green algae. It will have no effect on the drinking water.
The same day, the newspaper quoted Dr. Garry Whitelam of the university of Leicester saying that several forms of the algae were toxic, that it was a worldwide problem, and that there were three different kinds of cyanobacteria, one of them a liver toxin which had caused catle deaths in other countries, another a neurotoxin which had caused convulsions and spasms in mammals and another a skin

irritant known as swimmer's itch. If that was known to Dr. Whitelam, it should presumably have been known to Anglian Water.
On the day I visited the reservoir, I was specifically assured by Anglian Water that there was no danger to public water supplies and that the algae had been caused by the long dry spell of weather. I was told that it was an entirely natural phenomenon resulting from nutrients in the rivers which were pumped into the reservoir interacting with the sun.
However, I was not fully satisfied by those explanations, and directly after the weekend I wrote to Lord Crickhowell, the chairman of the National Rivers Authority, asking him to undertake an investigation. I also spoke on the telephone to his chief executive, Dr. John Bowman. I questioned Dr. Bowman closely about whether the problem had been made worse by discharges of phosphates into the rivers Welland and Nene or by the sewage being discharged from Okeham sewage works. He confirmed that discharges of that kind would certainly add to the process of eutrophication and thereby to the nutrient content of the water.
Since then I have been in continual correspondence with the chairman of Anglian Water, Mr. Bernard Henderson, with Lord Crickhowell of the NRA and with Ministers. I have been to see two Ministers, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), and my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier). I made a brief speech in the House on 13 November and I have asked numerous oral and written questions. However, I am still completely dissatisfied with the co-ordination and scope of the investigations.
When I went to see my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe, I felt great unease about the co-ordination between the NRA, which did not know the result of the post mortems on the sheep or the dogs, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which had not supplied information from its veterinary service to the Department of the Environment, and the Department of the Environment itself, which did not seem to know much at all, even about the important researches of Professor Geoffrey Codd at Dundee university.
However, a number of facts have emerged. First, the post mortem on Mr. Renner's lambs carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's veterinary service confirmed that microcystin toxin has been found in the liver and rumen contents.
Secondly, a substantial amount of scientific materials about algal poisoning is available in learned journals, mostly in the United States. For example, a note on algal toxins in Wisconsin waters experiencing blue-green algal blooms, written by three water scientists, appears in the 1988 edition of Lake and Reservoir Management. That is all on public deposit in the United States and it is widely available. The 1976 edition of "Black's", the standard veterinary dictionary in Britain also has an article on algal poisoning and is available in the library of MAFF's veterinary service with which MAFF vets are familiar, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food admitted to me on 24 January in a parliamentary answer. The recent learned paper by Professor Codd has five pages of references to other works on the subject.
Thirdly, I have not seen any post mortems on the dogs, but the Parliamentary Secretary told me on 11 January


that two dead dogs had been examined by MAFF vets and that their deaths may have been linked to the ingestion of blue-green algal toxins.
Fourthly, the NRA, which is conducting an investigation which I hope will be published shortly, has confirmed that the principal species associated with the toxic blooms on Rutland water was microcystis acruginosa, which produces the toxin microcystin.
In the past few days, Anglian Water has sent me two reports which I intend to treat as public and which I understand have been given to the Department of the Environment and to Rutland district council. One of them hums and hahs at considerable length about the causes of the disaster last August and September and refers to the work of Professor Codd at Dundee university. It admits that the first report about the scum from toxic blooms was published as long ago as 1878, following the death of domestic animals. It says that none of the post mortems on the animals that died at Rutland water is conclusive, but it admits:
the symptoms described are consistent with microcystin poisoning.
It accepts that phosphate and nitrate are key nutrients and that phosphate concentrations rose slightly in Rutland water in 1989 because of increased pumping from the Rivers Welland and Nene during a dry summer.
The report suggests that there must have been special factors at Rutland water to account for the heavier scum than at other reservoirs, which it blames on local physical features such as the prevailing winds or water movements. It adds that additional biologists and biological technicians are being recruited and that extra treatment is being installed at Oakham sewage treatment works
to remove the minor load of phosphate.
However, the report admits:
it is therefore possible that given similar climatic conditions, blue-green algal blooms could develop during the interim, including the coming summer.
There follow three extraordinary sentences:
It seems likely from the evidence that healthy fish caught at the time of a microcystin bloom are probably safe to eat. However, if an angler has any doubts, it is open to him or her not to eat the fish. If more specific advice can be given at the time of an incident such advice will be made available.
Not many people will regard those statements as helpful or reassuring.
Anglian Water's second report concerns water supply. It is worth remembering that, at every stage, Anglian Water said that the drinking water was safe. The report is hard to understand and is full of endless qualifications about the difficulty of comprehending data and whether the scientific results are satisfactory. According to the report, there was a brief period, from mid-October to 1 November 1989, when some possible microcystin in the filtered, final water was measured at up to 16 mg per litre on one particular day, compared with less than 1 mg in late September 1989.
The scientists seem unsure whether their experiments are valid, whether the element really was microcystin or what they call pseudo-microcystin, or why some of the treated water had a higher concentration of it than the untreated water. Clearly, the experts are very sceptical about the findings. They say that there remains a strong possibility that the compound reported as microcystin was wrongly identified, and report that work is continuing. They conclude that the water did not contain—this is the vital point—microcystin at levels harmful to health. They

make proposals, including the use of granular activated carbon, for an additional form of treatment if another major problem arises in the future.
There is no need to be alarmist about those vague, confusing and possibly incorrect findings, but my constituents and I are entitled to a specific answer—yes or no—from my hon. Friend the Minister to two simple questions. First, was the treated water at all times absolutely safe to drink last autumn, as the Anglian Water spokesman said publicly on several occasions? Secondly, has the water been absolutely safe to drink at all times since, including now? I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will answer unequivocally yes to both questions. If he cannot do so, the chairman of Anglian Water should resign immediately.
The very fact that I have to ask such questions shows how unsatisfactory the whole affair has been. It has revealed indecisiveness, defensiveness and inadequate research and action by Anglian Water. The Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have shown nothing like enough energy or determination in getting to the bottom of this disgraceful affair.
The Government have a duty to take action in five respects. First, they should establish an independent public inquiry under a High Court judge to determine whether that environmental disaster could have been prevented, its causes, whether the company was negligent or blame worthy. That inquiry should begin as soon as possible and report by the autumn. Last summer, 38 animals died—supposing a child had fallen out of a boat?
Secondly, the Minister should offer the full resources of Government scientific knowledge and advice, and if necessary fund additional research facilities at Dundee university or elsewhere. Department and NRA scientists should be sent at once to the United States to discuss findings with their American colleagues, who have great expertise in the subject.
Thirdly, the National Rivers Authority should be instructed to produce its own reports by the end of this month at the latest with specific recommendations.
Fourthly, the Minister should demand a full checklist for action from Anglian Water as to how it intends to prevent a repetition of the disaster this coming summer.
Finally, Anglian Water should immediately pay ex gratia compensation to all those people who lost animals and to business men who lost money because of the closure. If the commission of inquiry which I suggested finds Anglian Water blameworthy, the ex gratia sums could be augmented by the courts.
I hope that it will be clear to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that I have a deep sense of frustration and anger about this affair. Before I leave the House at the next general election, I intend to ensure that the matter has finally been settled and that public concern is fully allayed. I look to my hon. Friend for a full response today.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) on securing this debate and on pursuing this issue with his characteristic persistence and vigour. I fully understand his desire to protect his


constituents and to try to get to the bottom of this complex issue. I hope during my remarks to answer the points that he put to me.
It might be helpful to the House if I first say a few words about the nature of the algae of concern here, and recap on the events of last year.
As my hon. Friend knows, algae are minute aquatic plants which grow naturally in all surface waters. Their growth is determined by combinations of environmental factors such as sunlight, the length of day, temperature, nutrients and so on. With the constantly changing conditions in a lake, a succession of different species will thrive. There are more than 1,000 species of such algae in Britain. Towards autumn, the species which often dominate are of the blue-green type which is the subject of today's debate.
Although this succession rarely causes problems, under some conditions a so-called "bloom" of algae will occur. That is what happened at Rutland and in some other lakes last summer. Most algae are completely innocuous and are necessary for the life of the lake, but a few individual species of blue-green algae produce a toxic substance which can be released to the water. Microcystis is one of those algae and the toxin microcystin is sometimes, although not always, produced. We do not yet know of the mechanism by which this toxin is produced, nor the conditions favourable for its production.
Last year's problems of blue-green algae became apparent when reports were received in September of a small number of deaths in dogs and sheep following contact with Rutland water in my hon. Friend's constituency. Before 1989, we were not aware of any recorded incidents of adverse effects within the Anglian region.
Anglian Water's account of events shows that its biological monitoring of Rutland water in July and early August showed relatively low algal numbers in the main body of the reservoir. But following the reports of those animal deaths at the end of August and in September, Anglian Water carried out further sampling of algal scum, which was identified mainly as the blue-green algae microcystis. It then sought advice from Professor Codd at Dundee university on its toxicity.
By 7 September, Anglian had decided that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence available to show that the scum was toxic and could be hazardous. It therefore closed the reservoir to recreational activities and sought advice from veterinary specialists on the cause of the animal deaths.
For its part, the National Rivers Authority responded quickly. The Authority carried out extensive sampling of some 750 reservoirs and similar waters in England and Wales, to test for the presence of toxic blue-green algae; 53 of them in England were found to contain algae of toxic forms.
Secondly, having identified the areas at risk, the NRA suggested to site owners that they should consider taking a number of precautions, which they did. Apart from advising site owners on the action to take, the NRA of course informed local environmental health officers of its findings and advice. Finally, the NRA instituted a detailed analysis and review of last year's events.
As for the public health effects, Anglian Water concluded, on the basis of the evidence available that there was no hazard to public health from drinking water supplied from the two treatment works fed by Rutland water. Our medical advisers are unable to give definitive advice because of the unreliability of the analytical information available and the absence of any reliable toxicological data for algal toxins. They agree, however, that water from Rutland put into supply for drinking after treatment is extremely unlikely to pose a threat to health. No adverse human health effects have subsequently been reported as arising from Rutland water's problems.
The algae were concentrated at the shallow margins of the reservoir. Water for treatment is drawn from 15m deep in the main body of the reservoir, where algal concentrations were relatively low. Furthermore, the comprehensive water treatment facilities, which include the use of granular activated carbon filtration at the two Rutland treatment works, are likely to have removed any algal toxins which may have been present in the raw water.
My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the report just issued by Anglian Water Services Ltd. which sets out its views and analysis of last year's problems and what needs to be done in the future. A number of Anglian's comments will be echoed in my remarks today. One of the report's main conclusions is that more data are required to produce a reliable determination of the longer-term significance of algal blooms and the production of toxins.
The detection of microcystin in water is a complex analytical process all of its own. That is why conclusions and recommendations must be qualified and must not go ahead of the available scientific evidence. Anglian Water Services Ltd. also concluded that, so far, post mortems have proved inconclusive, although circumstantial evidence strongly suggests that algal toxins were the cause of death of the animals concerned.
The report also concluded that no significant increases in nutrients occurred last year, so it suggests that climatic conditions were the major contributory factor for algal growth.
On the available evidence, the report concludes that drinking water did not contain toxin at levels which cause harm to health, although it draws attention to difficulties in interpreting uncertain analytical information about the presence of microcystin in drinking water.
Finally, the report set out Anglian Water's future proposals, which include an improved monitoring programme, investment to reduce the levels of phosphate inputs into Rutland water, greater use of granular activated carbon treatment for drinking water and suitable arrangements for warning local people of the risks if algal blooms recur. This report is both constructive and helpful.
It was against that background that the National Rivers Authority set up a task group last year to investigate the blue-green algae problem. The terms of reference of the group are very wide. They are to assess the problems that occurred last year at Rutland water and elsewhere; to assess the extent of the problem, not just in the United Kingdom but abroad; to review the influence of nutrients; to review the influence of water quality management techniques; to review the influence of biotic factors; to identify the research and development requirements; to assess the staff resource implications; and to make recommendations for monitoring and eutrophication control to minimise the problem in future.


The task group is being chaired by Mr. Pearson of the NRA's Anglian region. It also includes Professor G. A. Codd of the university of Dundee, a leading expert in blue-green algae, Dr. Reynolds of the Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Mr. Fawell of the Water Research Centre, who is a toxicologist. My hon. Friend will agree that it is a wide-ranging inquiry conducted by experts.
The group intends to produce its report by early summer, but I cannot accede to my hon. Friend's request that it should be accelerated and produced by the end of the month. It will be produced before the main season for the development of blue-green algae. The group has contacted all NRA regions, water plcs and water companies that operate lakes and reservoirs.
In addition, since similar problems have been reported in a number of other countries, information is being collected from sources overseas and, as part of the NRA's research effort, the WRC is carrying out a full literature search and review.
I hope that that meets the point made specifically by my hon. Friend. I promise him that the group will aim to collate and review the problems and recommend future action to be taken. Research needs have to be indentified and budgeted within the NRA's programme to investigate the problem and produce effective systems for monitoring and control.
My hon. Friend will understand from my earlier remarks that it is simply not possible to prevent the growth of algae, as they are a naturally occurring phenomenon. Nevertheless, the task group considers that it is possible to take preventive action to reduce risk. It is therefore preparing a scheme to identify those lakes with the potential for problems. The group is devising a sampling programme which will categorise lakes used for public supply and immersion sports according to the risk of algal blooms occurring. A proportion of high-risk lakes will be subject to routine sampling and, by applying criteria for phosphate levels and algal content, it will be possible to inform owners when it would be advisable to take stock of the situation in the waters under their control and to make plans to minimise the risks.
As I have said, there is no record of damage to health via drinking water, despite the widespread occurrence of algal blooms. Nevertheless, I consider that there is an urgent need to improve our knowledge of the toxic effects of microcystin and to develop a reliable methodology for the detection and analysis of the toxin. Research is currently being carried out by Professor Codd for the water industry to develop improved analytical techniques for microcystin. We shall build upon his work to investigate the potential risks to consumers' health from the occurrence of algal toxins in drinking water.
These are vital steps in broadening our knowledge of the subject which, together with the work that the NRA is already undertaking, will provide a valuable base from which to consider the development of standards for algal toxins in drinking water.
I recognise my hon. Friend's concern about the issue. I entirely agree that we need to obtain the best possible picture of what took place last year. However, it is a complex matter. We must rely on good science to produce the answers. We must not rush ahead with hasty conclusions that are not supported by research. We are determined to get to the bottom of what occurred and, perhaps more importantly, what can be done if the problem recurs. In the light of that, and the fact that the NRA investigation already under way, I am satisfied that all possible steps are being taken to inquire into that unfortunate and tragic incident in my hon. Friend's constituency, and that the necessary follow-up action is in hand.

Royal Assent

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990
Nottingham Park Estate Act 1990.

Child Abuse

Mr. Peter Hardy: I wish to raise a serious aspect of child abuse that has caused increasing anxiety. I refer to ritualistic sex abuse, which certainly causes concern within the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and which was raised by it at a recent press conference. The matter is of significant social importance, as I am sure the Minister will recognise.
As a member of the central executive committee of the society, I felt that I should seek an opportunity to pursue the matter. In some quarters it may be rather fashionable to take a relaxed view about aspects of child welfare: that view was illustrated in an article in The Evening Standard last Tuesday week, which suggested that the NSPCC should take care that it does not harm people's liberties in the relentless campaign against people's vices. However, if there is a real or potential abuse of children, are not the society, the House and the Government under an obligation to take a serious view? It seems that that rather dismissive view of the society's record of vigilant concern was expressed in response to the recent press conference.
I was alerted to the problem two or three years ago when the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe considered a report from the legal affairs committee. It was a factual report, restrained in its approach, but nevertheless entirely horrifying. It contained information about the abduction and misuse of children internationally, and about the trade in obscene video films involving children. I was astonished to learn of the scale of the trade in western Europe and the United States.
From the report, I learned that people took holidays to places such as Bangkok, where wealthy citizens from countries such as our own could satisfy their paedophilic tastes. Children could be purchased as sexual objects and holiday sex toys. Against that awareness of evil, I was not so shocked about the matter aired by the NSPCC, and by others concerned about the development of ritual sex abuse.
What has been revealed is intolerable. The purpose of my debate is to ensure that the Administration perceive the evil and are committed to respond to it. I trust that the Minister will consider the view that the incidence of ritualistic sex abuse is likely to be significantly larger than the number of cases so far established. Perhaps he will accept that those involved, while perverse and evil, are likely to possess a degree of cunning to disguise their practice and to operate securely.
The article to which I referred earlier mentioned the society's fear that some parents were compelling their children to watch video nasties, and suggested that the evidence was entirely anecdotal. Evidence is difficult to secure, and it has often been difficult to present it within the context of prosecution. Perhaps the new arrangements will make the pursuit of legal action more meaningful. Although evidence about ritualistic sex abuse is not easy to obtain, sufficient is available fully to justify the society's anxiety, to justify my raising the matter here and to justify the call for adequate recognition by the Government.
There have been at least five successful prosecutions in the past couple of years, which were referred to in a serious article in The Independent on Sunday on 16 March. One parent, described as a devil worshipper, was sentenced at

the Old Bailey to imprisonment for the ritual abuse of seven children, including his own son or daughter. In another case, nine adults were imprisoned by the court in Nottingham on 53 charges of incest, indecent assault and cruelty against 21 children. One child was cut and the rest were required to drink his blood during a period that the children spent in what was described as a vortex of cruelty.
At the Old Bailey in 1980, an old lady was sentenced after she had imprisoned a girl and forced her to engage in black magic and sexual activity. Three men and a woman were sentenced at Chester about 18 months ago for vile activity involving children aged between three and 12. Last year, at Winchester, two men, one described as a practising Satanist, were imprisoned for incest, indecent assault and gross indecency with children from their own families. Those cases are not anecdotal.
Nor can one wholly dismiss the views of a clergyman mentioned in the article to which I have just referred, who said that he knew of girls who had been impregnated to serve ritualistic purposes, or the views of a woman involved in Childwatch, who was reported as having said that she had spoken to 40 children from various parts of the country who had been victims of such abuse. Others from different localities appear to have encountered child victims or other evidence of abuse. That is mentioned in the growing anxieties of experienced officers of the NSPCC.
The society has conducted a survey of its child protection teams. A questionnaire was sent from Saffron Hill, the society's headquarters, last autumn. As the Minister will be aware, the respondents are experienced, responsible and qualified men and women of considerable ability. They noted that it is difficult to secure information, that the practices are necessarily carried out in secret, that the children are fearful of punishment or sanction should they give information and that they may have been almost brainwashed to ensure no disclosures.
Some of the responses from the NSPCC's officers have led to serious concern being expressed. Nine teams have worked, or are currently working, with children who have been subjected to ritualistic sexual abuse. In recent months, four cases have been referred to the society by the police or local authority social services departments. Responses specify that one, two or 15 or 16 or more children have been involved in a group practising these rituals. One respondent said that up to 20 children could be involved in such ceremonies at any one time.
The reports from the society's officers provide some information about the sick activities that are involved. Five of the responses refer to children drinking blood or urine, five to the killing or abuse of animals, and five to the invocation of supernatural powers and the use of masks and costumes. In four cases, faeces were smeared on children's bodies, and in some cases children were held under water. There have been seven reports of threats made to maintain control of children. In several cases, dolls have been mutilated as part of the ritual. Other bizarre elements are recorded. Some children were made to eat what was said to be part of a human heart, while others were shown what was said to be a baby in a microwave oven.
Seven NSPCC teams said that they had worked with sexually abused children who had described symptoms or given reliable accounts of ritualistic activities, including attendance at events where adults had sex before them or where they had been made to eat faeces or to take part in


other disgraceful activities. The work of the NSPCC officers and others involved in helping such abused children is not easy, because the abusers tend to have a psychological hold on the children involved which may make them extremely fearful to talk about their experience to others.
It is likely to be extremely difficult to secure factual evidence. It may be rather more difficult than in many activities to establish the facts and to obtain evidence. More children may face such experiences than has been fully established so far. I hope that the House will bear that suspicion in mind as a serious aspect of the matter. I have been told that an NSPCC officer was recently threatened when he was seeking information about activities which he felt should be obtained to assist the child with whom he was concerned.
I am not about to suggest that we are now seeing the tip of an iceberg, but there are grounds for suspicion that such abuse is more frequent than one would have imagined a few years ago. The fact that there have been prosecutions of such cases of evil in different areas seems to justify my suggestion. As able and active officers of the society in various areas are concerned, it suggests that it would be foolish if there were to be a public assumption that the incidence of this evil is slight. I am also sure that the House will agree that even one case is too many. The experience of some children is so horrifying that society cannot readily allow any incidence of such experience to be ignored. Recent evidence suggests that child sex abuse is far more extensive than would have been assumed only a few years ago, and there is no reason for anyone to consider that ritualistic abuse is so odd, extreme or evil that it can exist only in fevered imagination.
These rituals may relate to satanism, to black magic or to devil worship. Such practices may involve ritual, ceremony, fancy words, mumbo-jumbo, strange equipment and weird activities. They may have no general appeal and they may be seen as neither sensible nor tasteful. However, we live in a free country and it would be inappropriate for Parliament or society to seek to interfere with or to outlaw such activities when they involve consenting adults. Such activities may be regarded as ridiculous, and if they became widespread it might be regarded as sad for the nation. However, we may be confident that there is sufficient common sense in this country to ensure that such activities remain a minority taste. Yet common sense must also apply to the protection of children.
There is evidence of evil practices involving children, so society and the House must make it clear that the abuse of children as part of such activities must not happen and that, if it does, resources will be made available to ensure that society provides a proper response.
I hope that the Minister will accept that I have taken a view which, although it might properly be regarded as stern, has not departed from balance. Whatever may be said of my view, I hope that those of the society and of the public and the voluntary organisations involved in child welfare will command respect.
In many ways, our society is nastier, greedier and more violent than it was in the earlier post-war period. I could give reasons for that, but I should not stray too far from the subject before us. Perhaps some of the possible causes of these undesirable developments will one day receive rather more attention. I hope that it will be one day soon. At this stage, I merely make the point that children—

perhaps in larger numbers than might have been expected—have been abused or are at risk of abuse from these ritualistic sources and the public response needs to be clear and adequate.
I also want to put it on record that organisations such as the NSPCC—there are other deserving and responsible bodies serving the same cause—and the various professional people and volunteers involved in societies that care for children are fulfilling an essential role. Such groups must continue to receive that priority of public esteem and support that is necessary to enable them to provide the services, help and protection that so many of the nation's children sadly require.
Children are not only their parents' obligation; they are the nation's children as well, and I trust that the Minister will acknowledge that. Governments, parties and politicians may believe that people must stand on their own feet and take responsibility for themselves, but it would be negligent folly if such a rule were applied to children. I hope that the Minister will recognise that public responsibility is substantial, that decency in the treatment of children will continue to be firmly required, and that the abuse of children for perverse purposes of satanism and ritual must lead to firm sanctions being applied.

The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): The House owes a debt of appreciation to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) for raising this important subject. It is a constant source of horror and shock that, in a modern society, children continue to be abused and neglected.
The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has played a central role in the evolution of services for the care and treatment of children who have been abused and their families. It has once again identified an area which may have seemed inconceivable to some members of the public but on which sufficient attention needs to be focused. Over the past 106 years, the NSPCC—like many other voluntary organisations—has developed services and earned itself a proud name. It is greatly respected by us all.
In congratulating the hon. Gentleman, I should like to take him back five years, to the time when I introduced an Adjournment debate on precisely this subject, motivated in large measure by the increasing amount of information that was being produced by the NSPCC. I referred then to what the enlightened founder of the NSPCC, Benjamim Waugh, said at the turn of the century:
It is better to remove evil from the home than to remove the child.
That view is part and parcel of modern thinking on child abuse.

Mr. Hardy: The Minister referred to her own debate on the subject. That leads me to comment that concern for children's welfare stretches to hon. Members on both sides of the House, as evidenced by the fact that the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) has been a member of the central executive committee of the society for longer than me and has given it distinguished service.

Mrs. Bottomley: Yes. My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) continually raises subjects of this nature.
Frankly, there can be no room for party division in respect of child abuse, and that was borne out during the


passage of the Children Act 1989. All hon. Members believe strongly that children should be entitled to a childhood free of sexual or physical abuse or of neglect. All that we know about the long-standing effects of abuse in childhood leads us to conclude that it is a thoroughly vile crime. We should not be satisfied until we have stamped it out.
The hon. Member for Wentworth raised the disturbing issue of the ritualistic abuse of children. The Government are aware of the concern about ritualistic abuse expressed by those handling child abuse cases. Through the social services inspectorate, the Department is monitoring the situation to assess the scale of the problem. I will consider at length the particular points raised by the hon. Member for Wentworth.
In November 1989 the Department arranged a meeting with representatives from the NSPCC, with whom we work closely, Childline, the Children's Society and the Association of Directors of Social Services. It became clear from our discussions that there is a need to obtain more information about ritual child abuse and child abuse networks in general. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that work is being carried forward.
The Department is well aware of the difficulties facing the statutory agencies when they handle such cases. Where networks have been discovered, close co-operation has developed between social workers and the police. Joint co-operation in investigations is always central to child abuse cases where obtaining evidence and establishing the facts is fraught with difficulty. That co-operation ensures that children can be interviewed sensitively and protected effectively.
So often, a child's abuse can almost be exaggerated or consolidated by the effects of the investigation. The sensitive handling of the investigations and the court hearing process, while protecting fair justice, must also give proper regard to the child's needs.

Mr. Frank Cook: Will the Minister ponder the fact that in many cases the simple fact that a child has received attention from the abuser highlights that that is probably the only form of positive attention that some children receive? In some instances, the neglect has been so great that the only care, even though that care was misplaced, vile, vicious and criminal, came from the abuser. It is difficult to get a child to realise then the iniquity of the incident and to appreciate that it should not have happened.

Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman shows a profound awareness of the details of child abuse cases. Such cases on the whole do not occur in isolation. They are part of a pattern of family interactions. The child must be considered not simply with regard to one traumatic incident, but in the context of his or her life and experience. It is important that handling abuse cases does not inadvertently consolidate the disadvantage that the child has suffered. So often that is borne out in the summary removal of a child.
The Children Act 1989 makes it clear that a child should not be removed from home unless it is essential for the child's safety and welfare. Very often the preferable course is to remove the perpetrator or potential perpetrator of the offence rather than the child, who

frequently is left feeling responsible or guilty. That may sound perverse, but those involved in child abuse would recognise those responses.
We appreciate that we must give further consideration to ritual child abuse. However, it should be seen as part of the wider problem of child abuse in general. Once a new area of concern is identified, so often the professionals involved, the families and the public begin to identify and piece together parts of a jigsaw puzzle that was sometimes previously too horrific even to be contemplated. Once again, the NSPCC has served the public well by placing on the agenda an aspect that some people previously thought did not even bear contemplation.
Regrettably, there is little new about child abuse and neglect. The use of pathological terms to describe its roots, causes and effects and the media's preoccupation with horrific cases should not obscure its long-standing nature or delude us into thinking that its incidence and characteristics are any different now from what has been described in literature over the years. Descriptions of barbarous treatment are widespread in literature and popular culture. There are frequent tales of infanticide, ritual sacrifice, mutilation, starvation, flogging and exploitation. It is only relatively recently that a child has been thought to have any right not to be abused or neglected.
I notice that dogs are among the hon. Gentleman's interests. He will be aware, as we are all aware, that the legislation to protect animals was on the statute book decades before the first legislation to protect children.

Mr. Hardy: I was aware of that, but the Minister might care to note that the people who were responsible for the legislation to protect children tended to be the people who had sought to protect animals. There was no distinction in the early days.

Mrs. Bottomley: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. Those who combined the protection of dogs and children in their interests clearly had sympathetic, kindly and sensitive personalities.
The Government attach high priority to the problem of child abuse and in recent years have embarked on a comprehensive programme to tackle it. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the important part that is played by the Children Act. We had on the statute book a motley number of laws concerned with children. They were built up piecemeal over the years, and they were complex and confusing for professionals and familes alike.
My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, steered through the House the important Children Act, which sets a framework that integrates and provides a coherent set of laws to clarify the welfare of the child and the role of the parents and of the local authority, and it sets a much better framework for partnership. Above all, it maintains that the child's interests must always be paramount. All hon. Members would endorse that.
The Department is involved in a major training programme. The establishment of legislation on the statute book is not sufficent to ensure that the law turns into good practice. Before October 1991, we must be satisfied that all those involved in child protection and child care and all those in the judical system are aware of the detail and the implications of the new legislation.


We have a training support programme for social workers, currently giving training in child protection to more than 70,000 social workers, and general child care training for more than 40,000 social workers. That amounts to more than £19 million this year. We are also producing guidance and detailed regulations on the Children Act. There has been a process of discussion and collaboration with the many organisations involved in child care. The NSPCC has certainly always been one such organisation with which the Department of Health has worked closely.
We are all aware that, in appalling cases in which tragedy has occurred, lessons must be learnt. Not only are the Department and agencies involved required to produce their own report for the area child protection committee; in extreme circumstances the Secretary of State will set up an inquiry, often with the great assistance of the social services inspectorate, to which I pay special tribute because of its work in investigating, advising and guiding. The inspectorate is universally respected and trusted. We are also examining the treatment of families, including abusers.
Hon. Members and Ministers may condemn child abuse, and many of us recognise that it often takes place in a family context. Facilities for the treatment of those who have been abused or who abuse are important. The Department provides assistance to the NSPCC. We are pleased to have done so over several years. We recognise its vital contribution and we respect it and continue to work with it.
I repeat my appreciation that the hon. Gentleman has raised this important issue today. It deserves our further attention. By working with him, the NSPCC and other organisations, we hope to create a society in which children grow up free from abuse and neglect.

Energy Conservation and Energy Efficiency

2 pm

Mr. Tony Speller: It is always a pleasure to see my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy on the Front Bench ready to answer on behalf of the Government all the questions that I shall ask. The Government must give some sensible answers soon on energy conservation and efficiency. This is not a usual subject for debate in Parliament because by and large this nation, like this Parliament, has totally neglected all the sensible measures that can be taken on energy.
It is perfectly fair for British Gas or any other utility to seek to sell more of its product. The only problem comes when selling more of the product does nasty things to the environment, which we now all recognise as important. I have every respect for all the utility companies. Under their new plc logos I believe that at long last they will become energy-sensitive, whereas in the past they were simply sales-sensitive. That is in no way to detract from the excellence or efficiency of the utility companies, but as a nation we have never sought to be energy-efficient.
If one buys a refrigerator in the United States, there will be a label stuck on the side saying how much it will cost to run. In this country a label will probably be stuck on the side telling us how much more exciting, how much sexier and how much bigger it is. No one tells us the obvious truth that a big fridge costs more to run than a small fridge. We have always been hell bent on the search for turnover in the hope of a profit. Meanwhile, as we increase the sales, so we increase, for example, the greenhouse effect.
It is my happy view that the campaigner for energy efficiency and conservation—indeed, the energy environmentalist of the future—will not be seen as some pleasant woolly lady with a bobble hat on her way to Greenham Common, who is in favour of energy efficiency on the side. Instead, it will be the hard-headed, indeed perhaps hard-faced, business man with long-term plans who says, "I must plan for the future, and because I am building something"— perhaps a nuclear power station, although I hope not—"I must also think of the cost in 20 years' time of closing it down and getting rid of the waste." I am not having a go at the nuclear industry, but British industry has never been charged with the eventual cost of cleaning up its products.
We are aware of the costs of cleaning up now. We see it in the smog in the Antarctic and we all say that we are greener than thou. But we should be clean before we are green. The first place to do the cleaning is in our own industry—literally, in our own back yard—before we pollute the back yards of other countries. There is little distance between that and energy efficiency or conservation. Every time that we require a utility, whether the gas, electricity or oil industry, to produce more, we must also ask what else it will produce more of besides that which we want to buy.
In Barnstaple, youngsters are pushed around in pushchairs, at just the level for all the nasty vapours given off by the motor cars. Youngsters go swimming off our coast and when they have goggles, they do not like what


they see below the surface. Our environment and its conservation and pollution are all part of the same matrix which, thank heavens, we have at last recognised.
I pay tribute to the Department of Energy, which has shaken off the sloth of some years, first under—I was about to say the premiership of, but it did not work out that way—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales when it first took an interest in the alternatives, then under my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, then under the Minister of State Department of Energy, who is now carrying on that work. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will follow the same line and say that it is not enough to produce energy or even to produce it cheaply; we must first produce it cleanly and only then cheaply because the environment costs are so high. We do not yet have any idea how or whether we shall be able to pay that particular piper.
I am the chairman of the all-party alternative energy group and it has been my great pleasure for the past six or seven years, along with the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) who is vice-chairman of the group, to work on a non-partisan basis. I am on the extreme right and he is on the extreme left, and we have met in the middle. Party political persuasion does not matter; what matters is how we persuade the globe that the search for more and more is not the answer; we must first ask at what cost.
We all talk of the unified market and the European Community. Happily, the EC appears to be facing up to some of its responsibilities. For example, it has been agreed by the Council of Ministers that the EC should improve energy efficiency by 20 per cent. between 1985 and 1995. That is a huge percentage increase, but no one has said how much that will cost. However, we must be talking of billions of pounds, all because, whether internationally at European level, nationally, or even locally in our communities, no one bothers about how much power we use because it is relatively so small a part of our total costs.
I am one of the few shopkeepers in Parliament. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) was Secretary of State for Energy and used to have his breakfast meetings around the countryside, I arranged for some of my people to attend. The only problem is that the cost of heating and lighting in our shops is relatively so small that they thought it would not be worth saving those costs. We all know the cost of our rent and various community charges, but we have never got down to the cost of energy in one's shop or business.
As we go home from the mother of Parliaments in the evening, we see great office blocks twinkling with light. Someone somewhere has given no thought to the cost of the energy that is being used or the implications of its use. We should start in the House. It may be boiling in summer and freezing or boiling in winter, but somewhere along the line we in this Chamber must give a lead and say that it is not enough to preach energy efficiency—we must practise it, too.
How do we do that? In some ways it is cheap. We can label appliances. I mentioned refrigerators in the United States. Will the Government consider, if only as a code of practice, telling manufacturers and importers of such

equipment to stick a label on their goods telling the customer how much each unit will cost to run? That would be simple and easy.
I have one particular hate. This is the only country in the world that I know of where a new electrical appliance, whether a hair dryer or a toaster, never has a plug on it. People may wonder what that has to do with energy efficiency, but it has a lot to do with it. Why are we so backward in telling manufacturers to label their goods and put a plug on them? I wonder how many accidents happen when people like me do not know what wires go where because we remember the old colours.
What about lighting standards? We are probably all aware that the new soft, more expensive lights use only about 25 per cent. of the energy used by the old lights. Such bulbs will be paid for halfway through their lifetime and, thereafter, money is being saved.
We have never promoted the simple idea that energy conservation need not be expensive, and that the cost of insulating one's home properly will probably be recouped in the first year or certainly in the second. The money saved by the house owner over 10 or 15 years is almost as important as the environmental savings enjoyed by the community, in avoiding the unpleasant by-products of generating energy.
People who are buying a house are willing to pay for a structural survey, but no one considers the cost of heating it. The Department of Energy is keen on promoting energy audits, but perhaps more can be done. In the United States, an energy audit costs about $25, and for another $150, simple measures can be taken to improve insulation and to stop draughts. They are simple improvements of a type that we never get around to—like mending the staircase that always creaked in grandad's day. If energy can be conserved, fewer power stations will be required.
Whenever we want more of something, we build new capacity. The consequence is that we have more houses in this country than families even though they happen to be in the wrong place— but that is the subject of another debate. It would be a simple matter to require the vendor of a property to notify a prospective purchaser of its energy efficiency. Vendors would be likely to give more thought to that aspect before putting their property on the market—perhaps commissioning an energy audit and making improvements that they had hitherto neglected. If they did so, they would achieve a higher price for their property, and its value would also be enhanced in environmental terms.
There is a maintenance office within this building, but we should also have an energy efficiency and conservation office—as should many other major buildings. The cost of the staff would be saved many times over. Once a proper system is established, savings continue for ever.
Financial assistance always presents a problem, and I generally support the Government's view. Why should we give financial assistance for improvements that will help the owner to make money? Why should the state pay for insulation from which the householder will benefit financially in the long term? However, I should be happy to see loans made available for energy conservation purposes. Last night, we were arguing over student loans to be repaid over a number of years. It would be as good or even better to invest in insulating our housing stock.
There are many elderly people, most of them ladies on low incomes not enjoying any pension payable on their late husband's former employment, who cannot afford to


live in reasonable comfort. They have to make do with the warmth provided by only one bar of an electric fire. There is no need for that. A little expenditure would provide for better insulation and allow a person to enjoy his or her remaining years in warm comfort.
The Building Research Establishment estimates that a 25 per cent. reduction could be achieved in energy consumption and in carbon dioxide emissions. The other side of excessive energy production is excessive production of carbon dioxide and of the other toxins produced by industrial processes. One cannot blame a vehicle manufacturer if the car that we all want pollutes the atmosphere with the oil and petrol that it must use. However, one can blame him if he does not take every possible step to reduce the volume of that pollution.
There have been market barriers and Government failings in not redefining the market so that there can be greater energy efficiency, but unlike in the United States, which normally leads us in energy efficiency, unleaded petrol is cheaper in this country than leaded. We have already said that we are prepared to tax petrol logically. Perhaps we should also impose less tax on other products that are more energy-efficient.
The Association for the Conservation of Energy would like value added tax removed from energy-saving products. Perhaps that is going too far, because it is likely that VAT will be with us for ever. Nevertheless, there is some logic in that argument, and we have already made something of a breakthrough in establishing the precedent of lower duty on unleaded petrol. We have said that we will tax less those things that are less damaging.
Let us consider the other side of the question. One sad example is British Gas—I have mentioned that company before, but not because I do not like it—whose tariff structure encourages customers who use less than 25,000 therms a year to waste gas. The bulk discount for the next level is such that it is worth burning and wasting power. The bulk tariff brings the total price and the unit cost down. These days that should be culpable. It should be legally wrong to be able to say, "The more you waste, the cheaper the price." That subject is also worthy of consideration by Government.
The other side of the equation is pollution produced by that vast excess of energy. We all know about carbon dioxide and I shall not insult the intelligence of hon. Members by going on about its bad effects. We know what they are. We are scared of the greenhouse effect, although we do not know why, and we are scared of nitrous oxides. We know that something is wrong and we know about global warming—or we think that we do. Perhaps, as is the case with AIDS, after a while we shall say that it probably is not as bad as all that.
The relative contribution of greenhouse gases to global warming in the past 10 years is straightforward—carbon dioxide is 50 per cent., methane 18 per cent., CFCs from our careless aerosols 14 per cent., nitrous oxides—NOs—6 per cent. and surface ozone 12 per cent. Let us just consider the 50 per cent. Half our global warming problems are caused by carbon dioxide, most of which comes from industrial Europe, using machines that it uses to produce the wealth to afford such things as studying the greenhouse effect. We can go further, as 80 per cent. of carbon dioxide is caused by the burning of fossil fuels. It is now estimated that in United Kingdom 92 per cent. of carbon dioxide is caused by fossil fuel burning, even though most of us do not have a coal fire in the house

—although we may have a log fire for show. Basically we have stopped using open coal fires and that is why the house looks so pleasant and clean, and why the fogs of my youth are no longer with us.
Fossil fuel divides into coal—with the largest share—oil and gas. Unless specific action is taken, fossil fuel consumption—we largely produce our energy from coal— and carbon dioxide emissions will rise dramatically.
My other sorrow is that every European Community country except the United Kingdom has shown willingness to commit itself to working towards a 20 per cent. carbon dioxide reduction as part of the initial global goal. An agreement was signed in 1988. It is a shame that our country is not a signatory.
My thoughts are not of great significance nationally or locally, but they are of some significance. We are a relatively little country and if every little country took a good look at how it wastes or saves energy, we could also make many people more comfortable. We should consider the by-products of energy and clean them up—the Secretary of State is keen to do that and may be talking soon about the alternative energy sources that are so dear to me.
We should reverse the cuts made in the Energy Efficiency Office and reinstate energy service schemes. We should study building regulations—although the new ones are good. We should say, "What about clean, alternative energy sources?" What about the wind? It causes no pollution—it causes damage, but the sheer power of it is wonderful. What about the waves? They can cause damage, but again the power is vast. I shall not say too much about solar power in Britain, but we should think of the power that exists around our coast. We must think about the potential for energy conservation and the need for energy efficiency.

Mr. Frank Cook: The hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) has already described to the Minister the alliance in which we jointly conspire—that is, the all-party alternative energy group.
I congratulate my colleague on winning the slot today and commend him for raising this issue. I also commend his comments to the Minister for serious consideration because much of what he says makes sense.
The hon. Gentleman touched upon the financial aspects of energy efficiency and technology. I shall briefly mention employment and the benefits that can be gained there.
The hon. Gentleman and I went to Norway where we saw two semi-tech pilot plants at Toffteshallen. One is a multi-resonant oscillating water column. The other is a tapered channel. Each is experimental, but they are producing electricity for less than 2·5p per kWh. That is better than our best nuclear and our best fossil fuel plants. Each of the plants uses British technology. The turbines were developed at Queen's university in Belfast. Each plant is producing electricity reliably, efficiently, cleanly and cheaply.
Why do the Norwegians want to do that when they have hydro-electric power coming out of their ears? The answer is simple. They do not need electricity; what they need is employment for their skilled technicians, men and women, who will come on to the labour market after North sea gas and oil have run out. The Norwegians are planning ahead, using British technology to put together


generating stations that are cheap, manageable and easy to control. They can be introduced one at a time. One does not have to wait the 20 years necessary for the completion of a nuclear power station. Wind and wave electricity-generating stations can be built for several tens of thousands of pounds. They use labour for whom employment in this country is needed. It is what I call the City and Guilds type of labour—not boffins walking around in white coats with masks on their faces but honest-to-goodness blue-collar people.
Apart from the efficiency and cost-saving that such plants represent, they would provide immediate employment for people on the Clyde, the Tyne, the Tees—from where I come —and the Mersey. The European Economic Community believes that Britain has the best wave climate in the world. That would also benefit the Third world. If we developed alternative cheaper, safer and more efficient forms of renewable energy, the Third world would be able to manage them. People there would be able to understand such forms of energy. Above all, we should provide them with something that they could afford. They could have them tomorrow, if only the political will were there.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Tony Baldry): I congratulate the chairman and vice-chairman of the all-party alternative energy group, my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) and the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), on their contributions to the debate. It is an important but large subject, and in the time available to me I shall be unable to respond to all the points that have been raised, or to deal with the subject as it ought to be dealt with. However, I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy welcomed the opportunity that was afforded to him recently to address the all-party group. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North and the hon. Member for Stockton, North that Ministers in the Department consider with great care everything that the all-party group puts forward. We are grateful to it for all the work that it does.
Energy efficiency can make a significant contribution to alleviating the problems of climate change. The Government believe that climate change could represent the greatest world challenge to sustainable development. We shall do whatever is necessary to meet that challenge. However, to act alone would be pointless. The United Kingdom alone produces about 3 per cent. of the world's carbon dioxide. So all nations must act together. A global problem requires a global solution.
The analyses of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will help us decide on the actions that we should take, and we shall fully meet our responsibilities once the necessary actions are determined. We shall also need to consider how climate change will affect different areas of the world so that affected regions can adapt in the future. The United Kingdom is taking a lead. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced at the United Nations General Assembly last November, we are establishing a new centre for the prediction of climate change.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also proposed that the work of the IPCC should continue in order to

provide a proper scientific base for any protocols setting targets for restrictions on greenhouse emissions. Global targets have to be broken down for each country. I am sure that that is the right approach and that the Prime Minister has wide international support for that initiative.
However, international consensus is still some months off and in the meantime we would clearly be foolhardy to do nothing. Nothing is not an option. The widespread international concern about climate change is clearly felt here. The Government share that widespread concern and are fully committed to protecting the environment. Energy production is a major contributor to greenhouse gases and we have been taking positive steps to do what we can now to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. One of the obvious ways to do that is to obtain whatever contribution we can from renewable sources of energy. Direct electricity producers such as wind and tidal energy give no gaseous emissions, and biofuels, although they involve combustion, recycle the carbon dioxide so there is no net increase.
Our policy, therefore, is to stimulate the development and application of renewable energy sources wherever they have prospects of being economically competitive and environmentally acceptable. We are doing that via an extensive research, development and demonstration programme in collaboration with industry and by ensuring a legislative infrastructure which allows renewable energy sources to compete equitably in the market.
The research and development programme on which £161 million has been spent to date is identifying the markets and developing and promoting the technology where appropriate. A prime example of a project to promote renewables was a recent joint study with the North-Western electricity board, which identified a potential of 400 MW with good prospects of commercial development in the next decade or two. Our earlier success story was the use of landfill gas as a fuel, which has additional benefits, as methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. The technology was researched and demonstrated within departmental programmes and the first 300 commercial applications are under way with a further 30 planned or under construction.
The Electricity Act 1989 provides for a private sector market in which renewable sources of energy can compete equitably when they are fully developed. In the shorter term, however, they will need some market protection while experience is gained and a manufacturing industry built up. We have therefore also provided the non-fossil fuel obligation, which should enable renewable energy to develop during the 1990s with a premium price being paid for the electricity. Renewable energy, however, will be able to contribute on a significant scale only in the somewhat longer term and we must therefore also look to shorter-term measures.
One item that all Governments will include in any internationally agreed response strategy is promoting energy efficiency. My hon. Friend outlined the need for that. We are already doing it. Energy efficiency is worth while in the economic and in the wider environmental sense. But the community as a whole, not just the Government, has to act and the community as a whole gets the benefit. We must all take action and make an immediate impact. The consequences of our inefficiency are felt not just in environmental pollution but in the bills that we pay each quarter, as individuals and as businesses.


The economic beauty of cost-effective energy efficiency improvements is that they do not really cost anything; savings of up to 20 per cent. of energy costs can usually be realised through simple, effective measures. Some cost literally nothing. On others we get our money back through lower energy bills in about two to three years. Savings after that come free.
At the end of the day, the efficient use of energy is the responsibility of each one of us. Where the Government are directly responsible for energy costs, we are taking positive action: Government Departments are looking to save 15 per cent. of our annual £300 million energy bill within five years, which is expected to involve a doubling of investment in energy efficiency measures.
However, the Government cannot force people to use energy more efficiently. The Government can offer advice and information to consumers on which they can base their decisions on investment and energy management, but the initiative to make the savings ultimately rests with the individual. In both the economic and the environmental sense, energy need not cost the earth. It is up to all of us to ensure that it does not.

Rural Communities

Mr. Jeff Rooker: I am an urban dweller and an urban representative. However, I am aware from my travels around the country and from friends and constituents who have relatives in rural areas that rural life is not quite the comfortable picture given by the glossy magazines so beloved of city dwellers.
Over the past few years, there has been a massive population shift in England. The adult population of the shires, which contain most of the rural communities, has increased by 2·7 million since 1976, whereas that of London and the metropolitan counties has decreased by 500,000 during the same period. Yet the institutional framework of our nation remains overwhelmingly urban dominated.
That has led to the ignorance and neglect of rural problems, and has affected housing, health care, transport, jobs and poverty. Even play facilities for children are affected. The idea that the country is so much better for the children does not work when one realises that skateboards do not run on grass. A rural child's first bike can be a parental nightmare.
Villages should be vibrant communities with a variety and richness equal to those in our urban villages. They should not be pushed into single-class pieces of detached suburbia surrounded by fields. Fewer than one in 10 now have a bank, a pharmacy or a permanent library.
Progress is sometimes measured in our society by economies of scale—a concept that is the scourge of small shops, small schools and small hospitals. If we do not come to terms with changes taking place in rural areas, we will have a two-tier rural society: well-heeled, middle-aged and elderly people in holiday and retirement homes making use of urban rather than rural services, and the rural poor locked into poverty, long hours, no choice, no transport and poor housing.
On health matters, I cite the joint survey last year by the Maternity Alliance and the National Federation of Women's Institutes, which found that pregnant women in rural areas face restricted choice, hospital closures and long journeys to clinics. Two thirds of rural maternity units in England have closed since 1960, yet those units are crucial. Some 32 per cent. of births in rural areas are in GP centres or community hospitals, compared with 9 per cent. nationally. Home births in rural areas are 6 per cent., compared to 1 per cent. nationally. A report was recently issued by the National Audit Office on maternity services, on which the Public Accounts Committee—of which I have the honour to be a member— will take evidence after the Easter recess.
Women in rural areas risk long journeys during labour, with the attendant risks. Most litigation currently in process relates to births in larger hospitals, not small units or home deliveries. Local maternity units do have good safety records. However, it is the fear of litigation that is behind the idea that local units cannot cope, so putting pressure on women in rural areas to travel to larger hospitals.
It is clear that the closure of local shops, and particularly of post offices, which are little used by wealthier rural dwellers, is most likely to hit those on low incomes. Fewer than one third of the rural population use local shops, but a survey commissioned a few years ago by


the Department of the Environment found that those who did were the poorest. The same survey by Brian McLaughlin and his team found that public transport networks were thinly spread. Since that time, they have been spread even thinner.
The most deprived poor in rural areas are those on low incomes who have no car. They cannot get to "competitively" priced rural supermarkets, which are not as low-cost as urban supermarkets. Nevertheless, for some, the car is so essential as a means of transport that other household essentials—I emphasise "essentials"—are forgone. I freely accept that car ownership in rural areas, even two cars, is not a luxury.
Transport problems in rural areas are so serious that they have a direct effect on health care. The McLaughlin study found that a higher proportion of the rural population had medical needs, yet compared to national equivalents they made less use of general medical services such as opticians and dentists, to name but two examples.
One in seven mothers living in rural areas do not attend baby clinics after giving birth. That must be a cause for concern, and it certainly was for those who wrote the report for the Maternity Alliance and the NFWI.
I briefly mentioned the forthcoming crisis, if there is not one already, for England's 8,500 village halls. Most of them—I think about 70 per cent.—are run as charities. Much depends on the location, but the potential for the extended use of those halls to help to create employment by using new technology and all the advances in communication, in addition to being used for committees, youth groups, playgroups, the elderly, doctors' surgeries, libraries and even post offices, is quite enormous. They are under pressure and will be snuffed out if we allow the European Community—these days, I support its general purposes—to impose VAT on charities from 1992. We have a major problem on our hands and a major threat to British rural life.
If we are serious about tackling deprivation and social isolation, which is prevalent, particularly of women in rural communities, who suffer from poor transport, we need action not only to secure and to improve existing facilities but to improve access to them by better transport. I receive enough complaints about the lack of buses in my heavily built up constituency, where the only blades of grass are in three or four public parks, but bus frequencies of more than 30 minutes are 77 per cent. in urban areas, but only 14 per cent. in rural areas. Bus frequencies of one per day or fewer are only 6 per cent. in urban areas but 62 per cent. in rural areas. We know that that causes massive problems for the millions of people who live in rural communities,
With transport—I do not put these in any order of importance because the people directly affected are aware of the importance of the problems—housing is by far the biggest problem in rural communities. I understand and share the concerns about development pressures and the environment, which must be addressed, but one in five of the population in England live in rural communities. That is millions of people and they are entitled to jobs, homes and a decent quality of life, but that is under attack because of the lack of "affordable" housing.
I well understand the changes in policy and emphasis, particularly through the Housing Corporation, but they

are too slow. When I was shadow housing Minister—I took professional advice on this—I could see the sense in the geographical "rounding off" of villages and small towns with extra homes to stop sprawl. I was accused of wanting to build right across the south downs. However, as a result, I support Lord Vinson, the chair of the Rural Development Commission, who said recently that the housing needs of rural people would need, on average, only
a handful of houses in every sizeable village".
Those homes must, of course, be affordable homes.
I want to illustrate the seriousness of the housing problem with two examples of real people. I do not intend to give the real names or locations. Barry and Judy, both in their 20s, started married life a couple of years ago in the third bedroom of Judy's parents' council home. They both come from old-established families in the village. They have been on the council list and have received no offers. Barry's ancestors are listed in the county records as farmers and his great-great-grandfather was a wheelwright—there may have been more than one all those years ago.
A cottage in the next village, just two miles away, came up for sale. It was two up and two down with no bathroom, and was priced at £30,000. They could just afford it if they both kept working. They started negotiations with the estate agent, but he advised the vendor to withdraw from the offer and to increase the price to £50,000. That was the end. Barry and Judy now live in a council flat seven miles away with no hope of returning to their local community.
My second example concerns Ian, the son of a farmer. He is getting married next year and wants no future other than to remain in his rural community and to work the land. He has no hope of a rented home in the area, so he wants to build a small bungalow on his father's farm. It will not be a mansion or an executive pile in the middle of a meadow, but a small bungalow set among the other buildings on the farm. The local community agrees that it would be a sensible thing to do, but permission to build there has been refused.
I began by saying—and I do not apologise for this—that I am an urban dweller and representative. I have no ready-made solutions to what I know are serious social and economic problems in rural areas. I know that part of the reason for the political neglect is that our current electoral system discourages the political parties from campaigning equally throughout the country. No one has ever contradicted me on that. It is a fact of life that in our system, votes cast in urban and rural areas do not have equal value in the link with elected representation.
The failure of rural communities to stop the closure of small schools and hospitals and to ensure that young adults can live in the same community as their families shows that under the present system the rural voice has no clout. However well intentioned the policies emanating from the centre—where most policies emanate—the people they affect remain without influence.
Most people—including myself—do not like change, but change happens whether we like it or not and we cannot opt out, wherever we live and whatever our position in society. The closure of a rural coalfield causes change to the rural community and that change is devastating and negative, especially if the closure is unplanned. Commuters moving into villages and taking them over, sometimes to stop others joining through new development, causes change. I read of an example


yesterday in the midlands. One aspect of that change has been the closure of 20 per cent. of local banks and 100 post offices a year for several years. We must attend to the consequences of such change.
No one seeks a policy for rural communities that would turn villages into living museums. Those who visit the villages, those who have friends and relatives there and those who live there do not want such a policy. We require a policy that allows local communities greater control over their own lives than hitherto. We need active balanced communities for the next century, but if shops, schools and hospitals continue to close, and jobs to disappear, and if local people are forced to move away to find a home, there is no way that the problems of rural communities can be solved. Our urban-dominated nation should and must address those problems because they affect millions of people.
I gave my debate the title "The Problems of Rural Communities". I am humble enough to admit that I do not have the solutions. I hope that I have put the problems across positively, rather than negatively, but I admit that I have referred only to the problems and not to the solutions. I invite the Minister to reflect upon them.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on securing the debate and on his choice of subject. He represents an urban constituency—a very urban constituency —but he clearly has a considerable knowledge of rural issues and has thought carefully about them. I was brought up in the country and I represent a rural constituency, so I value the opportunity to debate these matters and to explain how the Government are creating a framework with the dual objective of preserving an attractive rural environment while at the same time creating a healthy rural economy.
Before I go into detail, let me put the problems of rural areas into context. At the end of his speech, the hon. Member for Perry Barr said that change was constant. I agree with that. In the past 20 years or more, we have seen huge changes in Britain as a whole. Old traditional industries such as steel, coal and shipbuilding have declined somewhat and certainly shed labour. Agriculture, too, now employs fewer people. Those industries have been replaced by others—particularly in the service sector—which have grown up and now employ more people. The age profile of the population has also changed. We have more elderly and retired people, many of whom wish to retire away from their place of work. Our attitudes to home ownership have also changed and that has led in part to increases in house prices in some areas and the consequential difficulty for people living in villages in affording local housing.
These changes are not exclusive to rural areas; they are common to the economy as a whole. Rural areas are affected by the trend and they have their share of the problems, but in some areas the problems are no greater than those in other parts of the country, and in some they are less severe. Rural areas suffer some disadvantages. The hon. Gentleman touched on some of them, including greater distances and problems of access. But they can be

compensated for, perhaps, by the fact that rural areas have fewer problems of overcrowding and environmental dereliction, which are probably more acute in urban areas.
I agree that there is a considerable amount of misunderstanding about rural issues. There is no such thing as a rural idyll. That is an illusion and perhaps the result of Britain being a urban society. Surprisingly few people have first-hand experience of the countryside. People do not understand the complex social and economic forces at work. The same is true of countryside issues; people often take a simplistic view of conservation and environmental matters. I therefore welcome any opportunity to increase mutual understanding between country and town. One of the reasons why I support greater access to the countryside is that it gives city dwellers an opportunity to get out and experience the countryside, to meet people in the countryside and to improve their knowledge and understanding of it.
I want to list some of the ways in which the Government are taking a range of steps to tackle some of the problems to which the hon. Member for Perry Barr referred. We are having some success, but we are keeping the situation under review. In an evolving and changing economy, new problems arise as old ones are solved or become less acute. We are certainly not working towards a two-tier rural society with well-heeled, middle-aged and elderly people in holiday and retirement homes while the rural poor are locked into poverty and poor housing.
We are aware of the dangers of creating such a stratum in our rural areas. However, to some extent, that would be a caricature. When I was elected, many people were concerned about our villages dying. It was said that young people would move away to the more exciting towns where recreational facilities were better. Now some people are expressing the opposite fear that our villages are being overwhelmed by people moving to them after retirement or using them simply as bases from which to commute. However, that is not a realistic picture and the issues are not polarised in that way.
Newcomers to villages are often essential. If we are worried about the fact that there are not enough people to keep the local post office open or about the village shop not having enough customers or the village school not having enough pupils, we must welcome newcomers. As the hon. Member for Perry Barr said so perceptively, we do not want to create or preserve living museums in our rural areas.
The Government are aware of the problem. Our main task in rural Britain is to encourage the enterprise of those who live and work in rural areas and to increase activity by the private sector. Another task is to make the best possible use of public money—which must always be limited—in the pursuit of those aims. We also want to make full use of the opportunities to influence others to use the money to the best ends by concentrating that money in areas with the greatest need. The picture is varied and not all areas suffer from the same problems.
In general, we want to create a climate in which small businesses can flourish. The Government act through legislation or by providing pump-priming finance. To do that we have set up and are funding a range of agencies. The chief agency in England, and the best known, is the Rural Development Commission, which is sponsored by my Department. It is the main agency for diversifying the rural economy.


courseThe RDC's tasks are to highlight rural problems, to create a climate in which rural businesses and services can prosper and to initiate action to improve the economic and social development of rural areas. It achieves that by harnessing the voluntary and private sectors in the knowledge that the public sector cannot do everything on its own. Similar tasks are undertaken in Wales primarily by the Development Board for Rural Wales and the by the Welsh Development Agency. In Scotland, the Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands Development Board fulfil broadly similar functions.
Those agencies have achieved a great deal. For instance, the RDC estimates that it assisted in the creation or retention of some 3,900 job opportunities through its workshop programme in the financial year 1988–89. The Development Board for Rural Wales holds 474 factories and has sold a further 87. Together, they provide 8,500 jobs in rural Wales. Many other agencies also help to diversify the rural economy, by stimulating the flow of resources into more remote rural areas. They include the English and regional tourist boards, English Heritage, the Sports Council, the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council.
The hon. Gentleman talked with some knowledge about rural housing problems. Of course many people want, when they can, to buy rather than to rent a home. We have been very successful in giving council tenants the right to buy, and it would certainly be wrong if council tenants in rural areas were to be denied that opportunity. We are concerned to maintain the viability of rural communities. We recognise that affordable housing for local people to rent or buy has a key part to play. Our rural housing initiative, which was announced in July 1988, set out for the first time a specific policy on low-cost housing in smaller villages. Over the past two years we have introduced a series of measures to promote the provision of low-cost housing in rural areas.
We are increasing the level of investment in rural areas through housing associations, which have a major role to play in providing affordable housing both for rent and for low-cost sale, in particular through shared ownership. We have greatly increased the public funds available to the Housing Corporation, so enabling it to establish a special rural programme aimed at villages with a population of fewer than 1,000. When fully up and running, the programme should provide 1,500 homes a year for rent in small villages and 350 a year for low-cost sale.
We are introducing a scheme in some rural areas whereby housing associations can repurchase former shared ownership dwellings when the occupier moves on, thus ensuring their retention as low-cost housing. The Housing Corporation will guarantee to make the necessary funds available without reducing its rural rented or shared ownership programmes elsewhere.
Of course, public sector provision is not enough. We are also taking steps to encourage landowners and developers

to help in providing affordable housing for local people. In particular, in February 1989 we announced changes to planning rules whereby local planning authorities may, in exceptional cases, release small pockets of land, not previously designated for housing, for low-cost schemes to meet local needs, subject to conditions that ensure that the houses remain available to local people.
Rural areas can also expect to benefit from the encouragement that we have given to private investment in the rented sector through deregulation and the tax incentives available under the business expansion scheme.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned health. General practitioners are the first line of health care. I remind the House that in England there are special rural practice payments for general practitioners when at least 10 per cent. of their patients in a rural area live four miles or more from the main surgery. In Scotland, there are similar provisions.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned maternity services. I understand that the clinical view is that women should be encouraged to have their babies born in hospital when possible. That must usually mean the larger and fully staffed consultant units of district general hospitals which can provide the full range of services, including those necessary in any emergency.
It is a trend of modern medicine to have larger units providing that full back-up, and hospitals of that size are inevitably located in urban areas, and it is not feasible to provide smaller community hospitals with the full range of staff and equipment. District and regional health authorities are alert to the problems experienced in rural areas, and they make provision for travelling and try to ensure that mothers living in rural areas nevertheless have proper access to such hospitals. In order to minimise the risk, provision is made so that during ante-natal care a woman who lives in an isolated area and is judged to be at risk from labour can be admitted to hospital before the expected date of confinement. I do not accept that the NHS is unresponsive to the needs of rural areas or that the standards of service that they receive are necessarily inferior to those provided in towns and cities.
We cannot expect public transport in sparsely populated rural areas to be as good as it is in towns and cities. Nevertheless, under the Transport Act 1985 we opened the way for operators to provide flexible bus services in rural areas on a commercial basis. When it is not possible to provide a service commercially, local authorities have continuing powers to subsidise such services. We have also introduced the rural transport development fund specifically to assist in the provision of rural bus services.
I am aware of some of the problems raised by the hon. Gentleman. We are not complacent about them. We are also aware that future changes will throw up new problems, and we are keeping the matter constantly under review. Our aim throughout is to protect the historic and valuable countryside that is our precious heritage, while providing excellent facilities and services for those who live and work in those areas.

Professional and Executive Emoluments

3 pm

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Mine is the last but not least of the Easter Adjournment topics. Perhaps I have the credit of having chosen the most obscure title. Hon. Members may wonder what the title is getting at. I hasten to add that the construction of the words in the title was not my own, quite rightly according to the usual procedure and custom. I wish to raise the question of top executive salaries that top directors of companies pay themselves and the need for them to show self-restraint.
I declare an interest in several business activities outside the House, which are listed clearly in the Register. I do not need to go into them in detail and take up the time of the House. I am second to none among my colleagues in being a champion of the virtues of free enterprise, good business, business success and commercial activity. I pay tribute to the way in which the Government have encouraged that by their philosophy and been successful since 1979 in bringing about a dramatic transformaton in business practices and attitudes, and in running companies. That has stood the country in good stead and achieved for it a considerable reputation abroad.
I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment for coming to the House for the last of these Easter Adjournment debates. I hope that I have not delayed him in going to his constituency. I am grateful to him for coming from the Department to give some answers to my comments.
It is apposite that this subject should be raised from the Conservative Benches because we have a record as a business-oriented party, and the Government espouse free enterprise. I have never been so partisan in politics that I believed that trade union reform could come only from the Conservative party and business reform only from the Labour party in a divided political society. I also pay tribute to the Government for the way in which they have taken side by side the reform of trade union abuses—particularly in the earlier years of this Government —with the need for companies to put their house in order and indulge in better practices, and for stronger legislation on directors' responsibilities. All the companies legislation in recent years has created the necessary balance.
It is particularly interesting and relevant to raise this matter on the Conservative Benches because of growing anxieties about the excessive amounts that some chief executives, chairmen, managing directors and leading executives of companies pay themselves. I deliberately say "some" because of the way in which mechanisms work on company boards of directors and the generally welcome and impressive self-restraint that most directors have displayed, particularly those in charge of fixing their own emoluments.
I have noticed that, in recent years in particular, that has become a matter of great concern to the Government. I remember my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's dramatic response to complaints about the excessive remuneration—if that is a fair phrase—of, for example, the chairman of British Airways. She specifically referred to that before Christmas in a notable utterance.
In the past few years there have been an increasing number of comments in the press and in journals rather than in the House. That is one reason why I am raising the

matter today. There have some references to it in the House, but only usually from the more stakhanovite Labour Members on the Bench below the Gangway.
Many recent press articles, which I shall not quote because of the lack of time, have shown the growing concern about the subject. On 1 July 1989 The Guardian had an article entitled "How Britain's bosses are taking the rise", with details of the huge pay increases of top executives, chief executives and so on, in the largest 100 companies. On 23 July 1989, a newspaper well known for its support for private enterprise and the free market, The Sunday Times, had an article entitled, "How bosses justify £534,000 a year". It compared the salaries of the 30 highest-paid executives in Britain with the performance of their companies measured by profits and the change in earnings per share.
We know that highly paid executives, to some extent with justification, justify large salaries in terms of what they describe as the international demand for their expertise, but that is often more imagined than real. I do not detect an enormous international movement of senior executives all over the world according to the exact scientific market measurement of the best emolument and remuneration.
There is a growing abuse whereby directors and chief executives give themselves large contracts of three, four or five years at the outset of their tenure of office, or when they are threatened by a takeover bid, so that if the worst comes to the worst and they are ousted, by whatever means it might be, they know that they will be protected. That produces acid comments on the shop floor among junior management executives, the public and the admittedly rather docile shareholders who seem to be the norm even in our large plcs.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) who was one of the first of our colleagues to express anxiety about the matter. He asked the Chancellor whether he agreed that British management must continue to resist excessive wage claims and ensure also that their own snouts are not too deeply in the pay trough. The Chancellor rightly replied that he would not put the second part of my hon. Friend's question in precisely that way, but he would agree with the underlying sentiment. Similar references have also been made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others.
On 19 January 1990, The Times referred to the salary of Sir Ralph Halpern, which came under fire from shareholders at the annual meeting. It referred to the fact that, once the company's profits and turnover had begun to turn down in the current recession, an additional undisclosed payment was made to Sir Ralph Halpern as the head of the Burton group, which he did not even have to reveal to shareholders. We see the difficulties that arise when shareholders assert themselves only when it is too late and the company faces a grave crisis.
We should move to a system under which such contract arrangements are established only after a chief executive, managing director, or executive chairman, has begun his or her successful remodelling or expansion of the company, rather than from day one in any given period, usually fixed—a disturbing phenomenon of modern times—through the rather phoney mechanism whereby the so-called independent sub-committee of non-executive directors on the board fix the salary of the leading


executive directors. Sometimes—surprise, surprise—I then notice from the annual report that those non-executive directors have an increase in their fees.
The public are not fools and they will not be beguiled too easily into thinking that such increases are right. They compare them with the Government's fully justified exhortations to wage earners of one kind or another—including Members of Parliament—to show restraint by not making too heavy a wage claim. There is a big difference between one highly paid individual running a company with his team of directors and managers, and large numbers of the work force. The difference between the two is self-evident, but in a society that not only takes pride in the net, proven results of economic success that we hope to develop further in the future but bears some semblance still to being one nation, with fairness, balance and self-restraint by those in a position to fix their own rewards, there is a need for the Government to take a growing interest.
That is easy to say, but it is much harder in a free enterprise society and free market country to determine how the Government should involve themselves other than by exhortation. I make no apology for saying that there is no magic answer, particularly for an Administration who believe that it is not the place of Government to intervene in private matters.
The Government deliberately promote all kinds of specific and sometimes esoteric savings mechanisms and a commercial climate that encourages personal success and incentives. Above all, they have helped the higher-paid in society by reducing income tax. Those are all spectacular achievements, and the Government are entitled to ask senior executives of large companies and of publicly quoted plcs answerable to their shareholders, both institutional and private, to show self-restraint.
Earlier, I referred to the attack made on Lord King of Watnaby, who received a 116 per cent. pay rise in 1989, with the consequence that he was confronted by angry shareholders at the British Airways annual general meeting in the Barbican. It was asked whether the turnround by British Airways justified a doubling of Lord King's salary. An article in The Sunday Times of 23 July 1989 asked:
what sort of example does it set for the British workforce as it is being asked to accept wage increases in single figures? BA justifies the increases on the grounds that King's salary only puts him on par with his opposite numbers in American airlines".
Again, there is the conundrum of international salary comparisons, which in reality is somewhat exaggerated.
The example of self-restraint set by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is regarded by many people as being unfair on herself. She is perceived as very underpaid. She has a very modest salary by comparison with the huge incomes earned today that I could quote were sufficient time available.
What else can the Government do apart from set good examples of that kind? It is important for them to take an active role in pronouncing on such matters, even if they take no direct action in terms of imposing pay restraint, be it institutional or legislative. That would be totally alien to our philosophy as a Government, and I am not suggesting it as a solution.
However, Government utterances can be an important influence. When there are examples of huge increases of £1 million-plus for some directors of leading plcs capitalised at more than several hundred million pounds, or for directors who have run their companies into the ground but continue to receive huge payments while everyone else is suffering or being made redundant, the Government have a role to play in making their views known.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider the importance of monitoring statements, and so on, from his Department from time to time. If the Department merely exhorts wage earners to show restraint when making claims for higher pay, be it in the public or private sector, and does not pay attention to practices that create envy and jealousy among the lower-paid in society, it can unwittingly and innocently serve as an agent in the creation of an unfair society.
The lower income tax introduced by the Government means that the need for wage restraint among executives of leading public and quoted companies is even stronger. I pay tribute to the notable restraint shown by a number of chief executives, such as Lord Weinstock of GEC. Above all, it is important that the Government, the City, and others encourage shareholders not to remain docile but to be difficult and demanding.
I particularly call upon institutions in the City to show that they intend to play an active role in those matters, not only the matter of excessive pay levels manifested here and there and in quite a few other companies, but in these unwelcome contract developments which seem frequently to be a development of our commercial and industrial society.
I deliberately conclude my remarks—and once again I thank my hon. Friend for coming to answer the debate—by paying tribute to the number of exceptions which, if time had allowed, I would have mentioned in detail. I shall not do so today, for obvious reasons.
A total contrast is shown in Japan, which is the most successful economic system in the world, where 110 million people are creating a giant, highly successful, high-technology exporting economy and commercial system. It is interesting for us to consider the remuneration figures of the chief executives of Japanese companies which are successful worldwide. With a number of small exceptions, and not allowing for the separate question of perks and emoluments of a non-financial type, almost exclusively the picture is one of considerable restraint. The ratios are between six and 10 times the wages and salaries paid to management trainees on entry into those huge Japanese enterprises which export worldwide—and if we think of all those famous Japanese names, in almost all cases that is true—unlike the ratios of between 20 and 50 times that we find in this country, where chief executives pay themselves £1 million in comparison with a manager who may earn £40,000 for a senior executive post.
Although we accept the natural effect of inequalities in our society, and although we believe that it is part and parcel of what we hope will be a continuing economic success, we have to consider the other side of the coin, which is the Government's obligation to create a healthy economy and a moral economy. I hope I say that without showing any naivety or indulging in excessive wishful thinking. I think that the two can go together. We can create a fair society where the person on the shop floor


feels part of the team and identifies with the chief executive and does not regard him as an overpaid prince of industrial and commercial society.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): I acquit my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) of having caused me any inconvenience by requiring me to be in the House today. I accept that the subject which he has chosen for debate is perhaps not debated often enough, and, even though the House is not entirely packed on this occasion, my hon. Friend knows that Adjournment debates often receive wider attention when they are printed in Hansard.
Before I turn to specifics, I should like to make some general observations. Few subjects in industrial relations generally generate more heat—and less light—than senior executives' pay. It is, unfortunately, all too easy for some commentators to act as though the factors which determine the pay of senior professional and executive staff are in some way different from those which determine the pay of all other workers. That is just not the case.
The plain—and no doubt to some unpalatable—truth is that the pay of all workers is determined ultimately by the interaction of supply and demand. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said on a number of occasions that the determination of pay levels and remuneration packages has to be a matter for the companies concerned and their employees. When arriving at those determinations—usually, although by no means always through the mechanism of collective bargaining—firms should ob-viously take into account four cardinal principles: affordability, or their ability to pay; the need to recruit staff; the need to retain staff; and the need to motivate staff.
For firms in the private sector, particularly those providing internationally traded goods and services, it does not make any sense to give—or to allow themselves to be forced to concede—wage and salary increases which, after taking associated productivity gains and investment needs into account, make them uncompetitive in the marketplace. To do so will spell, sooner or later. the decline and ultimately the demise of the firm. And of course that means the loss of jobs.
The second cardinal principle is the need to recruit staff, and it is the individual firm which is best placed to assess the conditions in the labour markets in which it operates. Only it, therefore, can know what type of staff it needs, in what numbers, and with what qualifications. Only it can assess what salaries it needs to provide to attract them.
Simply to recruit staff is not enough; they have to be retained, or the firm will face continual disruption as its staff turns over, as continuity and experience are lost and as the considerable costs of training and recruitment have to be incurred over and over again, with little return in terms of high quality and reliable production and service to customers. Remuneration packages—pay, hours and other conditions and benefits—are a major means of retaining staff. That is the third cardinal principle.
The fourth is the motivation of staff. In one sense, it is perhaps the most important of all. Staff who lack motivation and commitment cannot provide the basis for a successful and competitive enterprise which is capable of surmounting the challenges of the marketplace.
Remuneration levels and conditions of service, such as holiday entitlement and hours of work, can be a powerful motivating force, if used imaginatively. Those principles apply just as much to the managing director as to the process operator, the chief executive and the delivery driver.
To try to build a ring fence around the upper management and to claim thereby that they are either more or less important than any other worker simply ignores the fact that a company's success is built on everyone in it, from the top down and the bottom up. Everyone has to be recruited, retained, motivated and rewarded.
So what are the Government's views on this crucial interaction between the individual and the firm for which he or she works? As my hon. Friend anticipates and, I think, agrees, the Government believe that pay has to be a matter for those who negotiate and determine it. We saw only too starkly between 1975 and 1979 what happens when Governments attempt rigidly to control incomes. Job-destroying economic distortions are introduced; spurious productivity deals are cobbled together; and industrial relations are harmed. Above all, the policy fails to deliver the goods: the long-term rate of growth in incomes is not moderated. None of us, therefore, would wish to return to those bad old days.
Companies, however, need the best management available. In sectors where managers are internationally mobile, their remuneration needs to be competitive, at least to some extent, internationally. It is not for the Government to decide what is or is not an appropriate remuneration for key managerial jobs. The Government have never tried to defend, nor will they now, wage or salary increases that are unjustifiable, either for management or for the work force as a whole.
The justification for pay increases for chief executives and managing directors are affordability and the need to recruit and retain appropriate talent. It is a matter entirely between companies and their shareholders how that is done. No Government can judge what damage would be done to a company's prospects by the loss of key staff who were the architects of its corporate strategy.
To turn to more specific issues, I must first remark that, typically, directors' and management salaries show extremely wide variations, depending on the size of the business, its profitability and turnover. According to a recently published survey, United Kingdom managing directors' salaries range from about £30,000 a year upwards. The average chief executive's pay in the United Kingdom is £62,820 which, according to a recent survey, is considerably lower than the average in West Germany, France and Switzerland.
It is fruitless and distorting to quote but not qualify the widely known salaries of a very few key individuals as proof that, across the board, our managing directors are overpaying themselves. We rank seventh in a recently published international league table of chief executives' remuneration, when all benefits are taken into account. On these figures we should not criticise ourselves for paying, as a general rule, overly high salaries. It may be that we are actually underpaying some key players in the fight for greater business efficiency, enterprise and trading success.
It might be worth saying a word or two about non-pay benefits. They, too, are part of the remuneration package. Contrary to popular belief, the company car, medical insurance, help with the house buying, share purchase or


option schemes and performance bonuses are no longer the sole preserve of the company chairman and the board member. These benefits are spreading extensively to more junior employees, to smaller companies and to many more sectors of industry and commerce, including parts of the public sector. The wider spread of those elements is attributable to their effectiveness in recruiting key staff at all levels.
We must also take into account the fact that calculating meaningful average annual increases for this particular group is difficult. Recently, three respected management consultancies came up with quite different answers to the question: by how much have directors' and managment salaries increased over the last year? One answer was 9·7 per cent., one was 11·4 per cent. and one was a massive 27·8 per cent.
I suspect that consistent, clear and accurate figures will be well-nigh impossible to obtain because of the extremely high variability within the group, and the fact that a tiny minority of very high increases will seriously distort the average figures. Be that as it may, and accepting that any figures likely to be bandied about should be treated with the greatest scepticism, we must also take into account the fact that, while some directors are highly rewarded, many of them also suffer cuts in remuneration when their businesses run into difficulty. In 1988–89, for instance, directors' total pay fell in four major companies by 18·1 per cent. 32·9 per cent. 11·1 per cent. and 21·1 per cent.
Many directors and chief executives are much more directly exposed than their work forces to fluctuations in the performance of their companies. Therefore, I agree with the remarks that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have made in the House on a number of occasions. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East usefully drew attention to that.
Because time is short, I shall not quote any of those remarks at length, but when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, he said:
I have never justified wage or salary increases that are unjustifiable, and I do not do so now. It is not, however, for me to determine what is or is not justifiable in that respect." —[Official Report, 8 June 1989; Vol. 154, c. 352.]
It must be accepted that the right salaries are not automatically synonymous with accepting unrealistically low salaries to satisfy the complaints from some hon. Members—not my hon. Friend—who believe that anyone earning more than they do has something to answer for.
Setting a good example must involve demonstrating real leadership; high levels of commitment to the company, at times with considerable cost to family life; high levels of expertise and experience; an enterprising and vigorous approach to expansion; a willingness to embrace change; and the continuous striving for more efficient business practices. All those valuable characteristics deserve appropriate reward, but it must be up to the businesses themselves to judge what they can afford to pay their key executives.
Paying an executive less than what is needed to recruit, retain and motivate, merely to counter some of the

objections that might be made by others, simply will not set a good example. In the final analysis it might set a thoroughly bad one. It is as distorting to the internal economy of a business to pay chief executives too little as to pay them too much. It might be distorting to the point of disaster if the Government were to interfere directly with those crucial decisions. By paying too little, important skills and talents will be lost. Just as much for the work force, the need to recruit and retain good management is absolutely essential for business success.
My hon. Friend and I probably agree far more than we disagree. However, I should like to mention two points. My hon. Friend mentioned the possibility of my Department conducting monitoring statements and said that it was easier to identify irresponsibility than to know how to deal with it. I have tried to give examples of some of the sources that are available to us. There is obviously a fair degree of variation, even on what commentators say. The only point that would trouble me about any formalised monitoring is that it would be difficult to know whether one was getting a comprehensive picture.
It is even more fundamental that, if one found that there had been a steady or perhaps dramatic increase in particular directors' salaries, knowing that in a formalised way would not enable my Department or any of my hon. Friends to say that those increases must have been unjustified merely because they were at such a level. It would not be possible to go so far.
I accept that that would be a more difficult argument for my hon. Friend and me than for the Opposition, who would take a more traditional and formalised attitude. It is difficult for us to debate the matters in the context of a society which my hon. Friend said should be economically and morally healty.
The problem with trying to lead by example is that those whom we expect to be impressed by our example are not impressed at all. I am sure that my hon. Friend, like me, will sometimes have been attacked at public meetings on the subject of the salaries of Members of Parliament. When I compare them with those of, for instance, civil servants or the senior chef in the Members' Dining Room, and point out that we have exercised considerable restraint over the years, my words are usually greeted with hoots of derision, the implication being that a Member of Parliament who is paid £24,000 a year is grossly overpaid. People's attitude is that, if they only had the time, they could do our job more effectively. I do not know whether that solves the conundrum, but at least it means that I can finish on a note that unites my hon. Friend and me.
I value the opportunity to consider the subject that my hon. Friend has raised and—I hope—to respond to some of his concerns.

Mr. Speaker: Before I adjourn the House, may I wish hon. Members and our officials and staff a very happy Easter recess?

It being half-past Three O'clock, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Order [27 March] and the Resolution [16 March] till Wednesday 18 April.